Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


V 








San Francisco Public Library 

•n Center 

100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

REFERENCE BOOK 

A'of to be taken from the Library 







HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 







S DEPT. 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1993 
2:45 P.M. 



213-R 



2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1993 
2:45 P.M. 



— NTS DEPT. 

FEB 8 1993 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



3 1223 03273 6648 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 



11 
APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI , Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRI S 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 



M. PATRICIA HILLIGOSS, Member 

14 State Air Resources Board 

15 SENATOR MILTON MARKS 

16 DAN PHELAN, Executive Director 
Bay Area League of Industrial Association 

MARC J. DEL PIERO, Member 

18 State Water Resources Control Board 

19 SENATOR HENRY MELLO 

20 ASSEMBLYMAN SAM FARR 

21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



INDEX 



ill 



Page 



Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 

M. PATRICIA HILLIGOSS, Member 

State Air Resources Board 1 

Witness in Support: 

SENATOR MILTON MARKS 1 

Statement by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Letter of Support from SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP . . 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Experience on Bay Area Air Quality Board .... 1 

Witness in Support: 

DAN PHELAN, Executive Director 

Bay Area League of Industrial Association 2 

Motion to Confirm 2 

Committee Action 3 

MARC J. DEL PIERO, Member 

State Water Resources Control Board 3 

Witnesses in Support: 

SENATOR HENRY MELLO 3 

ASSEMBLYMAN SAM FARR 4 

Background and Experience 5 

Career in Local Government 5 

Areas of Activity on Board 6 

Water Rights 6 

Groundwater Contamination Issues 7 

Draft Decision 1630 7 



4 49383 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
75 SFPL 06/06/03 24 



IV 

1 Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

2 Fishery Protection 7 

Coordination of Activities with 

Department of Fish and Game 8 



10 

ii 



13 



26 

27 
28 



Fishery Programs 8 

Decision 1630, Proposed Bay-Delta Order 9 

Impact on Salmon Population 9 



Recommendation Sets Standards for 
K Pumping Activities 10 

9 Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 



Position on the Renewal of Federal 

Water Contracts 10 



Proposals to Transfer Federal Water 
12 Projects to State Jurisdiction 11 



Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 



14 Water Quality Standards for San Francisco Bay . 12 

15 Setting of Standards by Region 2 

Regional Water Quality Control Board ... 14 

16 
17 
18 
19 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 



Standards Appealable to State Board .... 14 

Sewer Treatment Problem in Southern Santa 

Clara County 15 

City of Gilroy's Proposal to Discharge 

Sewage into Pajaro River 15 

Lawsuit by Monterey County Board of 

Supervisors over Adequacy of EIR 15 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Contamination of 2500 Wells by DBCP in 

Central Valley 16 



Expectation that State Board Would 
25 Become Involved 18 



Offer to Follow-up 18 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Nitrate Contamination in Drinking Water .... 

in Southern California 18 

Board's Action in Response 19 

Nitrate Contamination in Salinas Valley . . 20 

Groundwater Model to Monitor 

Movement of Nitrate Plumes 20 

Grants Available to Develop Different 

Types of Groundwater Modeling 20 

Board's Position on Conservation Programs ... 21 

Decision 1630 Is First Major Step to 

Mandate Conservation in Agriculture .... 21 

Conservation Goals 21 

Conservation Techniques 22 

Agricultural Conservation of Water 22 

Problems with Low Value Crops 24 

Need for Policy Decision that Recognizes 

High Water Cost for Certain Crops 24 

Recommendations 24 

Motion to Confirm 25 

Committee Action 26 

Termination of Proceedings 26 

Certificate of Reporter 27 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: M. Patricia Hilligoss's 
confirmation for Member of the State Air Resources Board. 

Senator Marks is here to introduce Ms. Hilligoss. 

SENATOR MARKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. 

I came here to urge the confirmation of Patricia 
Hilligoss. She's the Mayor of Petaluma, a district which I 
represent. She's done an outstanding job as Mayor of Petaluma, 
and is fully conversant with the concerns that she's being 
nominated for. I recommend her highly. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 

We also have on record a letter of support as well as 
an expression of intention that he would have liked to have been 
here for the confirmation, but unfortunately cannot be, from 
Senator Quentin Kopp. So, we'll enter that into the record as 
well . 

Mayor Hilligoss, we'll ask you what we ask all the 
Governor's appointees, and that is why you feel you're qualified 
to assume this position. 

MS. HILLIGOSS: Well, I served on the Bay Area Air 
Quality Board back in the '70s with Senator Kopp, and U.S. 
Senator Barbara Boxer, and Senator McCorquodale . And then I was 
re-appointed at the end of 1989, and I've been serving on the 
Bay Area air Quality Board since then. And I went — I was 
Secretary, Vice Chair, and then when Anna Eschew was just 
elected to Congress, I am the Chair now of the Bay Area Air 






3 

4 

6 
7 
X 
9 
10 



13 

14 
15 
16 

17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Quality Board. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

Are there any questions of the Mayor? 

Is there anyone here in support? In opposition? 

MR. PHELAN: My name is Dan Phelan. I am Executive 
Director of the Bay Area League of Industrial Association. 

I've written a letter, and I won't repeat the letter. 
I'd simply say that I've known Patricia Hilligoss since she was 
on the Board in '78. In all aspects, she's very well qualified 
to do the job which you're now asked to confirm. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Are there any questions of the Mayor? Is there a 
motion before us? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move confirmation to the Floor. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Craven moves confirmation 
be recommended to the Floor. 

Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 
Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

MS. HILLIGOSS: Thank you very much. 
[Thereupon the Rules Committee 
acted upon legislative agenda 
items . ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next item on the agenda is the 
appointment of Marc J. Del Piero, Member of the State Water 
Resources Control Board. 

Both Senator Mello and Assemblyman Farr are here, 
come forward, to introduce Mr. Del Piero. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to 
view the operation of the Rules Committee from this spectator's 
point here and know that my colleague is doing a good job of 
replacing me there. 

I ' m happy to introduce and present to the Committee a 
very distinguished person to the California State Water 
Resources Control Board. He is the attorney member, and this 
Board is a five-member, full-time, appointed by the Governor, 
dealing with the allocation of water rights, and protect the 
water quality in California. 

I've known Mr. Del Piero for many, many years. He's 
been a County Supervisor of Monterey County and served in many 
other activities there. He's joined here today by his wife, 
Tina Del Piero, sitting right back there. 



3 

4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IK 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Happy to have you with us, too, 
Ms. Del Piero. 

SENATOR MELLO: And the thing that I'm impressed with 
him is, I know we have many battles up here about water, and I 
think it was Mark Twain who said, "Whiskey is to drink and water 
is to fight over." And we've had plenty of fights. 

But I think Mr. Del Piero represents the kind of 
attitude and willingness to work hard to eliminate the fights 
and get in and come up with solutions to protect this great 
resource for the State of California. 

He's already been involved in many of the decisions 
that I think are fair to the entire state, so I'm happy to 
present him here today and introduce him, and urge the Rules 
Committee to confirm him to the full Senate. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator Mello. 

Assemblyman Farr. 

ASSEMBLYMAN FARR: Thank you very much, Senator 
Roberti, and distinguished Members of the Rules Committee. 

I'm here — I think Senator Mello and I are here as 
two Democrats to recommend the confirmation of a Republican that 
we've served with in public office. I was a County Supervisor 
when Marc Del Piero was on the Planning Commission in Monterey 
County and very involved with LAFCOs, very outstanding, 
recognized member of the state of a person who really 
understands the water issues. Comes from neither a North nor a 
South, or a user of any of the state water process, because all 
of the water we have on the coast is in our own county, and it's 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I! 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



essentially the knowledge of the small water systems, the rural 
governing issues as well. And I think he brings a perspective 
to the Board that is needed in today's difficult water issues. 

I've submitted a letter recommending confirmation of 
his appointment, and I'm very pleased to be here with Senator 
Mello in doing that, and also recognizing that this is Marc's 
40th birthday and 14th wedding anniversary today with Tina. So, 
we hope that your decision will be — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I hope it's auspicious for him. 

ASSEMBLYMAN FARR: — a good birthday present. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Supervisor, tell us why you feel 
you're qualified to assume this position. 

MR. DEL PIERO: Thank you very much, Senator Roberti. 

First of all, let me express my appreciation to you 
and the Members of the Committee for affording me the 
opportunity to discuss my position on the State Water Board 
today . 

My career began in local government when I was 27 
years old. That's when I got elected to the Monterey County 
Board of Supervisors. Prior to that, when I was 24, I had been 
appointed to the County Planning Commission. During the 
entirety of my career in local government, I participated in a 
significant number of issues directly related to water. During 
the course of the 11 years that I served on the Monterey County 
Board of Supervisors, I was responsible for the construction of 
four county sanitation districts, four public water agencies, 
one power plant, the operation of two major reservoirs and dams, 



2 
3 

4 
5 

A 

7 
8 

10 
il 
12 

13 

14 
15 
16 

17 
18 
19 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



and the initiation of a $500 million capital improvements 
programs for water. 

Additionally, beyond the bricks and mortar aspect of 
what I did on the local governmental level, I was also 
responsible for a number of water quality programs. Monterey 
County, through the Board of Supervisors, developed the first 
groundwater model to evaluate nitrate contamination due to 
agricultural pesticides and particularly fertilizers. That 
model, through a grant from the State Water Resources Control 
Board, on which I currently sit, is currently being utilized 
throughout the State of California as a model for other 
groundwater analysis that is taking place. 

Additionally, I was very lucky to have been appointed 
by Congressman Leon Panetta to have served on the advisory 
committee that developed the regulatory structure for both the 
Elk Horn Slough National Estuary and Marine Sanctuary, as well 
as the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary that was currently — that 
was dedicated by the Secretary of the Interior last year. 

The activities that I have participated in during 
both my activities with local government as well as my service 
on the Board since the beginning of February of 1992 have 
basically focused on four areas. 

The first, obviously, is water rights, because under 
the authorizing legislation for the State Water Resources 
Control Board, the attorney position, which I currently fill, is 
responsible for being aware of and being familiar with water 
supply and water rights issues. 









3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Additionally, our Board deals with groundwater 
contamination issues. We are responsible for groundwater 
protection. We have instituted an underground storage tank 
program, clearly implementing the legislation that was passed by 
the Legislature a couple of years ago. That program has been 
very successful. 

Beyond that, and perhaps most importantly, and most 
recently, about three weeks ago, the State Water Resources 
Control Board issued its draft decision, Decision 1630, on the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta Order. That decision is before 
our Board on January 25th, at which time we will entertain 
comments on the draft decision and, hopefully, render a decision 
that can ultimately at least provide some interim relief for the 
problems that have manifested themselves in the Sacramento-San 
Joaquin Delta. 

Mr. Chairman, with that brief overview, I would 
submit myself for questioning by your Committee, sir. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are there any questions of 
Mr. Del Piero? 

Is it under your jurisdiction that we have the whole 
question of fishery protection? 

MR. DEL PIERO: Fishery protection is — is under the 
Department of Fish and Game. However, we are responsible for 
protecting all of the public trust and public benefit uses that 
water can be put to in the state, and pursuant to that, we have 
a very significant role to play in terms of protection of the 
public trust values, and those include the fisheries in the 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IK 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2S 



Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as well as throughout the various 
water bodies over which we have jurisdiction. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Do you coordinate your activities 
with Fish and Game? 

MR. DEL PIERO: Very much so. 

We -- during the course of our hearings on water 
rights allocations, when people file applications to take water 
out of various streams or rivers, we are required to receive 
both testimony and give serious consideration to the 
recommendations made by the Department of Fish and Game as to 
how to guarantee that the appropriations that are proposed will 
not have an adverse impact on public resource values . That 
means the fisheries. 

Our Board has made extra effort, particularly 
recently, to ensure that those public benefit values are, in 
fact, protected prior to us granting any new appropriative 
rights . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Do you have any program you ' re 
working on right now as far as — 

MR. DEL PIERO: Fisheries? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — fisheries? 

MR. DEL PIERO: We've got several programs, yes, 
Senator. 

Decision 1630, which is the Bay-Delta Order, is 
perhaps the most far-reaching order dealing with fisheries 
issues, as well as all types of water issues, inasmuch as the 
Delta provides water for a tremendous percentage of the 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



population of this state. 

The order that was announced early in December by our 
Board was the result of seven months of effort by our Board. We 
had 15 days of public testimony during the summer of this past 
year as a result of direction both by the Governor as well as a 
number of legal actions that had taken place in a previous time 
prior to my appointment to the Board. 

It was our desire and our effort to adopt interim 
standards that would basically stop the hemorrhaging in the 
Delta; to stabilize and to attempt to initiate the recovery of 
the biological communities that exist there. 

The proposed Decision 1630, the proposed Bay-Delta 
Order, if implemented, we believe that it will have a 
significant impact on particularly the salmon population. We 
have developed some rather interesting and, in some cases, novel 
approaches toward the development — or the re-development of 
salmon runs on a number of the river systems that are tributary 
to the Sacramento and the San Joaquin. Those include not only 
limitations on reverse flows and pumping in the spring time, 
when the small salmon are out migrating into the San Francisco 
Bay, but more specifically, provisions that require not only the 
Central Valley Project and the State Water Department, but also 
other agencies that have impoundments or reservoirs on various 
tributaries in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River system to 
provide pulse flows to facilitate the out -migration of salmon 
smelt at the time when they are most sensitive to having 
adverse impacts on them. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



10 



The single biggest problem that we've discovered 
during the course of all of the public testimony that was 
presented was that, salmon runs on the Sacramento and San 
Joaquin are most adversely affected in the spring time because 
that's when the pumps are turned on. The adult salmon are less 
adversely impacted by the operation of the pumps, but the small 
ones just simply can't be — cannot avoid be sucked into those 
pumps and then, obviously, killed. 

The recommendation that we have set standards for 
pumping activities by both the Central Valley Project and the 
State Department of Water Resources between February 1st and 
June 30th to protect those out-migrating salmon. We also have 
additional mechanisms in there to provide attraction runs for 
adult in-migrating salmon so that they can find their way back 
to spawn . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Did you ever take a position — I 
think it was last year there was a question before Congress — 
on the renewal of the federal contracts on water? 

MR. DEL PIERO: On the Miller bill? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes. Did you ever take a position 
on that? 

MR. DEL PIERO: No, sir. In fact, that — that 
legislation worked its way through. Our Board provided some 
background information and technical information for a number of 
the parties who had called and requesting that. 

I will point out to you that the Miller bill provides 
a mechanism in it for the State Water Resources Control Board to 



2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

y 

10 

n 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



11 



establish priority for the utilization of that water. And in 
fact, as part of Decision 1630, our Board has taken — has taken 
the initiative pursuant to the authorization by Congress to 
determine about 550,000 acre of the water that was authorized by 
iithe Miller bill has, in fact, been allocated for the restoration 
of the Delta pursuant to that draft order. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I don't know if it was part of the 
Miller bill, but there also have been proposals that most of the 
Federal Water Projects at some point be transferred to state 
jurisdiction — 

MR. DEL PIERO: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — as well. 

Do you have a position on that area? 

MR. DEL PIERO: Do I have a position on it? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, has the Board taken a 
position? 

MR. DEL PIERO: No, the Board has not taken a 
position. And in fact, the Board would not be responsible for 
the administration of the CVP if it is, in fact, taken over. 
That would be the responsibility of the Department of Water 
Resources . 

We, however, would be responsible, as we are even 
currently, for decisions related to water rights, and how much 
of that water is allocated for agricultural or urban uses or for 
the environment. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other question? 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a question. 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

II 

12 
13 

14 
15 

16 

17 
IS 
I') 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
2X 



12 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Del Piero, the Board has not 
taken a position yet as to the quality standards for the Bay. 
The Miller bill kind of touches on that, but has the Board 
established it? You've been having hearings throughout the 
state. Have you come up with standards of quality water 
standards for the Bay? 

MR. DEL PIERO: A number of years ago before I was on 
the State Water Resources Control Board, there was a contention 
that there were water quality standards that had to be 
maintained within the San Francisco Bay itself. 

During the course of a review of a significant amount 
of analysis that has taken place over the course of the last 
five to six years, it's become apparent that previously 
theorized impacts on the quality of the biological community in 
San Francisco Bay is — the belief that fresh water inflow into 
the Bay some how had a major impact on the Bay has not proven to 
be as true as some people had thought it was . 

And the consequences of that have been that the focus 
has been turned less toward water quality in the Bay — and I 
don't mean water quality from the standpoint of contamination or 
toxics; I mean from the standpoint of fresh water versus salt 
water — and more toward recognizing the need to both preserve 
and enhance the health of the Delta. 

The single — single biggest impacts on the biotic 
community that exists within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is 
as a result of the pumping that has taken place. That's one of 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



13 



the reasons why the winter run has been listed. That's one of 
the reasons why there's significant discussion now about the 
Delta smelt and other — 

SENATOR AYALA: It will be your responsibility to set 
those standards . 

MR. DEL PIERO: That's correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: You haven't done that yet. 

MR. DEL PIERO: We have not done it for the Bay yet. 
Decision 1630 will do it for the Delta, and that will be 
considered by us — 

SENATOR AYALA: The Delta already has standards. 
This is going to enhance those standards . 

MR. DEL PIERO: That's correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Bay is protected by Porter 
Cologne. 

MR. DEL PIERO: That's also correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't know what we're trying to 
protect there. I mean, it's a salt water bay, always will be. 

MR. DEL PIERO: Well, the Bay is a salt water body. 
And there — as I indicated, the contention that fresh water 
inflow somehow had an impact on the Bay has, to a significant 
extent, been put to rest at this point. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is that correct to say that? 

MR. DEL PIERO: Substantially not correct. The 
original belief -- 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm glad to hear that. 

MR. DEL PIERO: There is some impact, but it is 



14 



3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
I') 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



substantially correct what was believed earlier. That's 
correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, you will be setting the standards 
in the near — 

MR. DEL PIERO: We have water quality for discharges 
in San Francisco Bay that are actually set by Region 2 of the 
Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

SENATOR AYALA: But it's under Porter Cologne. 

MR. DEL PIERO: That's correct, under the Porter 
Cologne Act. But that's the Region 2 Regional Water Quality 
Control Board. They set those standards, and those standards 
are ultimately appealable up to the State Water Resources 
Control Board if someone contends that they're either — 

SENATOR AYALA: The regional will set those 
standards . 

MR. DEL PIERO: That's correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: They'll be appealed if anyone — to 
the State Board. 

MR. DEL PIERO: They will set the standards for 
permits . 

The State Water Resources Control Board adopts what 
is known as a Bays and Estuaries Plan that sets criteria for the 
entirety of the state. Then the Regional Boards are responsible 
for implementing those on a site-by-site basis on specific 
permitting. 

SENATOR AYALA: Yesterday, when you and I visited, I 
didn't have this letter from the Mayor of Gilroy. 



15 



3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Can you briefly tell me what is the problem with the 
sewer treatment problem in Santa Cruz County? 

MR. DEL PIERO: No, it's not in Santa Cruz. It's in 
southern -- 

SENATOR AYALA: Santa Clara County. 

MR. DEL PIERO: Southern Santa Clara. 

When I was on the Board of Supervisors, the Board of 
Supervisors of Monterey County sued the City of Gilroy over 
their proposal to discharge their sewage into the Pajaro River, 
which is a river that runs through Monterey County. We sued 
them over the adequacy of their environmental impact report. We 
sued them in Santa Clara County, where Gilroy is located and 
where, obviously, the county seat of Monterey County is not. 

And the Superior Court in Santa Clara County 
overturned their environmental impact report, forced them to go 
back and go through a much more comprehensive EIR in order to 
address the water quality problems in the Pajaro River that 
would — would result if they discharged their sewage into the 
River. 

The concern that Monterey County had was that, and 
remains, is that the Pajaro River provides a percolation 
mechanism for the groundwater supply in the Pajaro Valley. And 
in order to ensure that the water supply for the Pajaro Valley 
— which the City of Watsonville relies on, which the community 
of Pajaro also relies on — was in fact protected, we felt that 
the environmental impact report that had been prepared by the 
Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill was inadequate. The Superior 



16 



3 
4 
S 
6 
7 
8 

y 

10 

ii 

12 
13 
14 
LS 
16 
17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 

T) 

23 
24 

25 
2d 
27 
2K 



Court agreed with us. 

SENATOR AYALA: So the problem is that you required 
or requested another EIR? 

MR. DEL PIERO: That we requested a more detailed 
EIR, and they refused to do it. And so, the Board of 
Supervisors, in looking after the interest of our constituents, 
sued, and we were successful. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other questions? Senator 
Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm interested in the underground 
water supply. 

Over the years we've had legislation to impose some 
jkind of regulation. It's always been defeated because of the 
growers' opposition. 

Sometime back, in doing monitoring, we discovered a 
lot of contamination; 2500 wells in the Valley alone were all 
deemed to be contaminated with DBCP. And yet, there's been no 
program developed by the Board to tackle that problem and try to 
eliminate it. 

Can you tell me anything about whether anything' s 
happening recently on that? 

MR. DEL PIERO: I can't tell you anything about that 
particular issue, but I can tell you what the standards and 
criteria are that are pursued when that type of contamination is 
identified. 

The 2500 wells, I assume, cross a variety of county 
.. jurisdictions? 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IK 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



17 



SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

MR. DEL PIERO: Currently, the way the system works 
is, when those wells are identified as being contaminated, two 
agencies have — technically have jurisdiction. The County 
Environmental Health Officer is the one that is immediately 
responsible for making sure that those wells are not put to 
potable use. If they are, he's responsible for issuing a red 
tag and causing the cessation of the utilization of those wells 
until a cleanup program has been adopted. 

Additionally, the Regional Water Quality Control 
Boards are also responsible. And normally, it goes beyond the 
jurisdiction or authority of the Environmental Health Officer, 
so it ultimately goes to the Regional Water Quality Control 
Boards . 

The Regional Water Quality Control Boards, if they 
have in fact issued citations for contaminations, will require, 
in order to get those citations eliminated, the preparation and 
implementation of a cleanup plan. 

Now, the 2500 wells that you're referring to, 
Senator, I'm not familiar with. But it is — if they are 
located in the San Joaquin Valley, they are located in the San 
Joaquin Valley Regional Water Quality Control boundary area. 
And if in fact those wells have been identified with 
contamination, then individualized actions, I assume, would have 
been issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for 
clean up. 

Those technically would not come under the State 



18 



1 j Water Board unless there was some overriding program that would 
have necessitated our funding. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, it was discovered in 1984, and 
there was a big hullabaloo over it. 

It was my recollection, as it was expected, that 
because it was such a big area — it wasn't just one county, as 
you pointed out — that the State Board ought to be involved in 
it, at least set a policy that the others could follow. 

In the meantime, apparently, nobody's done anything. 

MR. DEL PIERO: Well, if you'd like, if you've got a 
file on that in your office, I ' d be very happy to take a look at 
that and follow up as to what implementation or enforcement 
actions have in fact been taken. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I don't have a file on it. It's 
just that it's been brought to my attention by the staff. I do 
hear about it from time to time. 

MR. DEL PIERO: I'll check with our staff and see 
what that is . 

That, as I indicated, technically would have fallen 
under the Regional Water Quality Board for the Central Valley 
for enforcement actions . 

But I'll get back to you in regards to that issue. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Related to that, more recently, in 
'89, the Board did issue a report relating to nitrate 
contamination in drinking water, and that was required by the 
Budget Act of 1987. 

MR. DEL PIERO: Yes. 



14 
15 
16 
17 



IS 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
2X 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2X 



19 



SENATOR PETRIS: The summary says that the 
Metropolitan Water District in Southern California is losing a 
certain percentage of its water, drinking water, every year, 4 
percent, because of this. 

I'm wondering if the Board is taking any action on 
that? 

MR. DEL PIERO: We — at this point, the Board has 
actively been involved in attempting to develop groundwater 
protection scenarios for the San Gabriel Valley groundwater 
aquifer. I believe that's what you're referring to. 

That basin was adjudicated a number of years ago. It 
has a Water Master. 

The Board has an ongoing program of working with 
local governmental agencies to not only adopt, but implement, 
protection mechanisms for that area in order to both limit any 
further contamination, and two, and more importantly, that's to 
clean up the plumes — isolate and clean up the plumes of 
nitrate contamination. 

The source of those nitrate contaminations are 
multiple. It's not an easily addressed program, but the Board 
has an ongoing program with the San Gabriel Valley. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I thought it was mostly 
agricultural . 

MR. DEL PIERO: Well, it is mostly agriculture. 
Commercial fertilizers contribute significantly. And if it — 
if we were talking about Monterey County, I could tell you that 
95 percent of the groundwater contamination from nitrates comes 



20 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



from commercial fertilizers; the other 5 percent comes from 
septic tanks . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Salinas Valley? 

MR. DEL PIERO: Salinas Valley, that's correct. 

And as I indicated during the course of my 
presentation, we actually have developed a groundwater model to 
monitor the movement of nitrate plumes that have resulted from 
agricultural activities. 

We're also attempting to identify mechanisms by which 
we can encapsulate those plumes and, through reverse pumping, 
cause them to stop expanding out and be pulled back in. 

The Salinas Valley is developing a number of 
ii groundwater management scenarios that are sort of on the cutting 
edge, because we've had a significant problem with sea water 
intrusion there that we're in the process of addressing. And 
the nitrates is another issue, too, because there's a very large 
plume that's heading toward the City of Salinas and about 
100,000 people. 

The same groundwater management techniques are 
applicable, whether it's in Los Angeles County, or in Monterey 
County, or anywhere on the North Coast. It's dependent upon the 
hydrogeology of the particular area. 

The Board has been granting money through a granted 
program that, in fact, some of the funds were authorized by this 
Legislature here about three years ago, to develop different 
types of groundwater modeling. We're — the Board is doing the 
very best it can in terms of attempting to develop a 



21 



3 

4 
5 

7 
K 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

23 
24 

25 
26 
27 
2X 



computerized base able to address groundwater contamination. 

Groundwater contamination is an extremely insidious 
thing, because no matter how much groundwater modeling is done, 
no matter how many wells are drilled, no matter how many well 
drillers' logs are analyzed, no one is ever absolutely sure of 
the nature of the geologic formations in which the water is -- 
is borne. So, once it's contaminated, it takes a very, very 
long time and a significant amount of money to try and clean it 
up. 

Our Board has been doing the very best it can, given 
the financial difficulties that all of us face in this state, to 
try and spend those monies that have been allocated to us in as 
efficient a fashion as possible to develop groundwater models 
that have the greatest potential for application throughout the 
different areas of the State of California. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Does the Board address conservation 
problems at all? 

MR. DEL PIERO: Yes, the Board does address 
conservation. And in Decision 1630, not only have we mandated 
conservation on urban users, but we've taken a first major step 
toward mandating conservation on agricultural users. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you have a goal in terms of 
volume of water? 

MR. DEL PIERO: Well, we don't have a goal in terms 
of volume, because it's not that — that easy. 

The best we can do in terms of conservation is 
attempting to recognize that there are a number of techniques 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 

X 

«> 

10 

II 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IS 
I') 
20 

21 
2~> 

23 
24 

25 
26 

27 



22 



1 that can be used to conserve water. Five-gallon flush toilets 
are antiquated. There are 1*5 gallon flush toilets that are 
being installed throughout the State of California that work 
very, very well. There is really no reason to install a 
five-gallon flush toilet, other than someone doesn't feel like 
— like participating in water conservation. 

There are mechanisms for conservation such as low 
flow shower heads, installation of gray water systems in new 
developments, where reclaimed sewage water can be utilized for 
irrigation of outside landscaping. That's been done in Orange 
County. There are a number of other programs that can be 
implemented to achieve water conservation. 

An ultimate goal sort of flies in the face of a 
growing economy in this state. It's my belief that there is a 
tremendous amount of water that can be — water saving, and 
consequently, water re-use, that can be achieved through 
conservation, both urban conservation and agricultural 
conservation . 

And at this point in time, the Board, through 
Decision 1630, is taking a major — it's the first step, but 
it's a major step, in terms of mandating urban conservation 
through the MOU that ' s been developed by the urban water users . 
And also for the first time, recognizing that significant 
conservation responsibilities lie on the shoulders of the 
agricultural community throughout this state, but particularly 
in the Central Valley, and having identified a number of 
conservation activities and techniques in that order for them to 



23 



participate in. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm familiar with the urban district 
conservation because the local districts are doing a good job of 
that, especially those that have been hit with the drought. 

I don't know much about the agricultural side of it. 
Are there programs actually in place, or are they only in the 
planning stage? 

MR. DEL PIERO: No, there are programs — in some 
instances, there are programs that are actually in place. And 
it was rather enlightening during the course of the Bay-Delta 
hearings that were conducted to find out that magnitude of water 
conservation techniques that are being utilized by 
agriculturalists in different areas of the State of California. 

San Diego, Orange County, San Bernardino, Riverside 
have — particularly the orchard owners and the tree crop 
growers — have displayed — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Does that involve the use of a drip 
system? 

MR. DEL PIERO: Yes, that's exactly what it involves. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is it economically feasible? 

MR. DEL PIERO: They have discovered it is very 
economically feasible. The type of crops that they grow down 
there — lemons, citrus — are crops that generally have a good 
return. 

In the Salinas Valley, it's equally true, where you 
have high value row crops like lettuce, cauliflower, celery. 

A place where it's clear there is a problem in terms 



2 

3 

4 



6 
7 
X 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
I.S 
16 
17 
IK 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 



25 
26 

27 
28 



24 



1 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2K 



of making the economics work is places where relatively low 
value crops are being grown -- corn, cotton, sorghum, grain 
crops where the return is not significantly high. It's very, 
very difficult to — for the farmers to expend money for capital 
improvements on their farms that really translate into 
irrigation systems improvements. They don't make a whole lot of 
money on their crops, and as a result, they don't have a whole 
lot to spend for water conservation and water — water system 
improvements . 

It seems to me, Senator, in all candor, that a 
policy decision needs to be made, and that's whether or not 
there's going to be a recognition — and my family are all 
farmers, so I'm telling you that from that perspective ~ there 
seems to be a need to recognize that some agricultural 
commodities by their nature cost a lot of water. They cost a 
lot of water. And we have — as a state — have to make a 
conscious decision as to whether or not we want that 
agricultural commodity to be cheap, so that our residents can 
enjoy inexpensive food, or whether that commodity is going to be 
very expensive, and that commodity's going to be taken off of 
the shopping list of a number of people. 

That's not a decision I'm capable of making. That's 
a decision that others with greater authority than I are going 
to have to make. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you have any recommendations? 

MR. DEL PIERO: I've got a lot of recommendations, 
Senator. I'll be happy to sit down and talk to you about it 



25 



sometime, if you'd like. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

MR. DEL PIERO: Great. 

Cam Karis told me to say hi to you. I talked to him 
this morning. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Say hi to him. 

MR. DEL PIERO: We're good friends, been friends for 
years . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Another Democrat recommending a 
Republican. 

MR. DEL PIERO: Well, he's — what can I tell you? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Have you ever thought of running 
for the Senate? 

[Laughter. ] 

15 MR. DEL PIERO: Henry Mello holds that seat. I'm 

very happy with this job. Honestly, Senator, I'm very happy 
with this job. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any further questions? 

Any opposition? 

Then do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Senator Beverly moves 
confirmation. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
H 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 



16 

17 
IS 
I 1 ) 
20 

21 

23 

24 



25 
2h 






26 



3 

4 

5 
6 

7 
X 

10 
II 
12 
13 

14 
15 
l(> 

17 
IK 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
2ft 
27 
2X 



SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is five to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

MR. DEL PIERO: Thank you very much, Senator. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
3:46 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



27 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
I transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

2w IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
day of January, 1993. 




EVELYN J./T1IZAK, 
Shorthand Reporter 



->"> 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
2S 






213-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.00 per copy 
plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 100 J Street, Room B-1 5 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 213-R when ordering. 



s 






HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




. S Di£PT. 

FEB 81993 



JV >»o^O ( 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13,1993 
2:40 P.M. 



214-R 






SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



3 



4 



5 

6 

l 

7 

|l 

S 
9 

10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
1.5 
If) 
17 
IX 
l ( ) 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
2S 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1993 
2:40 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 

10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IK 
19 
20 

22 

» 

24 | 
26 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI , Chair 

SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

JULIA LI WU, Member 
Board of Governors 
California Community Colleges 

WILLIAM F. S00 H00, Director 
Department of Toxic Substances Control 
California Environmental Protection Agency 

SENATOR CATHIE WRIGHT 

EDDIE GABRIEL 

Asian/Pacific State Employees Association 

THOMAS E. McKONE, Ph.D., Senior Scientist 
Environmental Sciences Division 
University of California 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

PETER H. WEINER, Attorney at Law, Chairman 

Environmental Department 

Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe 

STEVE PIATEK, Manager 
Environmental Health and Safety 
Huntway Refining Company 



27 
2K 



10 

1 1 

12 
13 
14 
15 

16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



111 
APPEARANCES I Continued) 



ALVIN GREENBERG, Ph.D., Technical Consultant 
Planning and Conservation League 

MEL KNIGHT, Chief 
Hazardous Materials Division 
Environmental Management Department 
County of Sacramento 

JODY SPARKS, President 
Toxics Assessment Group 



JAMES W. WELLS, Director 
Department of Pesticide Regulation 
California Environmental Protection Agency 






CARL WINTER, Ph.D., Director 

FoodSafe Program 

University of California at Davis 



IV 



3 
4 

6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



INDEX 

Proceeding 

Governor ' s Appointees t 

I JULIA LI WU, Member 
Board of Governors 
California Community Colleges 

Background and Experience 

Motion to Confirm 

Committee Action 

WILLIAM F. S00 H00, Director 
Department of Toxic Substances Control 
California Environmental Protection Agency 

Background and Experience 

90-day External Review Committee 

Reorganization Goals 

Fundamental Changes to Department 

Key Accomplishments Over Past Year 

State ' s Superf und 

Two New Initiatives 

Witness in Support: 

SENATOR CATHY WRIGHT 

Involvement with 90-day External Review 
Committee 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Status of State ' s Superf und and Solvency 

Progress at Stringfellow Site 

Provision of Bottled Water to 
Residents 



Page 



1 
1 
2 
2 

3 
3 
4 
5 
5 
6 
9 
10 

11 

11 

12 
14 

14 



* 



18 
19 
20 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
2X 



INDEX (Continued) 

Responsibility to Find Responsible Party 14 
Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 



Problems of DRC Drew Resources Corp. to 

4 Comply with Various Statutes 15 

Borrowing Staff from Other Departments 16 

6 Proposed Dow Chemical Incinerator 18 

Masonite Company in Ukiah 18 

National Cement Incinerator in Kern County 19 

Witnesses in Support: 



EDDIE GABRIEL 

Asian/Pacific State Employees Association 20 



10 

THOMAS E. McKONE, Ph.D., Senior Scientist 

12 Environmental Sciences Division 
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory 

13 University of California 20 

14 PETER WEINER, Chairman 
Environmental Department 

15 Heller, Ehrman, White 6 McAuliffe 25 

16 STEVE PIATEK, Manager 
Environmental Health and Safety 

17 Huntway Refining Company 26 



ALVIN GREENBERG, Ph.D., Technical Consultant 

Planning and Conservation League 28 



MEL KNIGHT, Director 
Environmental Health and Chief 
Hazardous Materials 
21 County of Sacramento 29 



22 JODY SPARKS, President 

Toxics Assessment Group 30 



Motion to Confirm 33 

Committee Action 34 



VI 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
X 

10 

II 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IS 
l<> 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



INDEX (Continued) 

JAMES WELLS, Director 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

Background and Experience 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Cancellation of Any of the 46 High Priority 
Toxic Chemicals 

Four Adverse Chemicals Withdrawn 
by Companies 

Thirty-two Chemicals Chemicals Currently 
in Risk Characterization Process 

Description of Department ' s Evaluation 
Process 

Hazard Identification 

Exposure Assessment Phase 

Suspension of Cancellation Action 

Principle Source of Prioritization List 

Department ' s Action that Caused Companies 
to Withdraw Chemicals 

Department's Future Plans for List of 46 

Use of Economic Standard in Risk 
Assessments 

Exceptions Granted by Department 
Under Economic Standard 

Length of Average Extension 

Number of Scientists on Staff 

Number of Filled Positions 

Submittal of Report and Recommendations 
by Toxicologists 



35 
35 



39 
40 

41 

42 
42 
42 

44 
44 

45 
46 

47 

47 
48 
48 
49 

49 



Vll 



4 
S 
h 
7 
X 

10 

II 
12 
13 

14 
IS 

16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



INDEX ( Continued) 

Rehiring of Scientists Who Had Quit 

New Fail Safe System that Nothing Can 
Be Registered over Objection of a 
Scientist 

Use of the Chemical Fosdrin 

Quote from 1978 Statement by Department 
of Food and Agriculture 

Reasons for Not Cancelling Fosdrin 

Will Complete Risk Assessment in '93 

Toxic Substances Cancelled in Past Year 

Forceful Actions Taken 

Actions of Manufacturers When Alerted 
that Department Is Doing Risk Assessment 

Department Request Adequate Studies 

Operation of Mixers by Minors 

Age Limit 

Penalty for Violation 

Request to Check Regulation to Verify 
Minimum Age Requirement 

Current Status of Posting and Re-entry Levels 
Posting on Labor Intensive Crops 
Proper Posting Time 

Pre-Emption of Federal EPA 

Feds Removal of Skull-and-Crossbones 

Ban on Minors Mixing Should Extend to 
Application as Well 

County Enforcement of Pesticide Laws 

Urban Areas Have Most Fines for 
Violations 



50 

51 
51 

51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

56 
57 
57 
58 
58 

59 
59 
60 
61 
62 
62 

64 
65 

65 



Vlll 



3 

4 
S 
6 

7 
X 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



INDEX I Continued) 

Launching of Initiative to Develop 
Uniform Standards for Counties 

Accusation by Article in Journal, The Packer 
re: Enforcement 

Banning Use of Pesticides in School Houses, 
School Grounds, and Day Care Centers 

Development of a List of Substances 

Incident in San Francisco which Occurred 
Day after Governor Vetoed Bill 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Responsibility of Department for Spraying 
of Malathion for Medfly Eradication 

Two Methods of Control or Eradication of 
Medfly 

Health Risk of Spraying Malathion in 
Residential Areas 

Lack of Substantial Progress in 12 Years 

Use of DNA Typing to Determine Origin 
and Natural Controls 

Request for Copy of Information Documenting 
No Health Risk with Malathion Spraying 

Witness in Support: 

CARL WINTER, Ph.D., Director 

FoodSafe Program 

University of California at Davis 

Motion to Confirm 

Committee Action 
Termination of Proceedings 
Certificate of Reporter 
Submitted Testimony of DOUG HEMLY 



66 

68 

70 
70 

71 



72 

73 

74 
75 

76 

77 



77 
80 
81 
81 
82 
83 



4 
S 
t\ 

1 

ii 

«) 
10 
II 

12 

\y 

14 
IS 
16 

17 
IS 
I 1 ) 
2(1 

21 

ii 

23 

24 

'i 
2.S !' 

26 

27 

II 
2K 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Governor's appointees appearing 
today, Julia Li Wu, Member of the Board of Governors of the 
California Community College system. 

Good to see you, Julia. 

She's my former constituent. 

MS. WU: It's nice to be back. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Why don't you tell us, as we've 
asked you before, why you feel you're qualified to retain this 
position? 

MS. WU: Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Roberti, Senator Bob Beverly, Senator Ayala, 
Senator Craven, Senator Petris, it's my great pleasure and honor 
to be here to attend this hearing. And I'd like to take just a 
couple of seconds to give my thanks to Senator Roberti and 
Senator Beverly for your support to our Los Angeles community 
colleges . 

To answer your question, I have been an educator all 
my life, having been a teacher at the Los Angeles Community 
College, and having been a librarian most of my time. And I 
feel that I'm committed, fully committed, to education. 

And having been elected to the Los Angeles Community 
College Board in 1987 and re-elected last year, I feel 
furthermore that I certainly can bring my local — the 
grassroots perspectives, as well as the multicultural 
constituents ' viewpoints to the Board of Governors of the 



4 



1 California Community Colleges. 

And I think I can have a lot to contribute to the 
state's 107 community colleges with my kind of background and 
experience . 
s CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I agree. 

h MS. WU: Dedication, too. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You've been an outstanding member 
8 of the Board, even though we don't belong to the same party. 
g Is there any objection to Ms . Wu's confirmation? 

10 SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

11 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Then Senator Craven makes the 
motion that Julia Li Wu be recommended to the Floor for 
confirmation to the Board of Governors, California Community 



13 



14 Colleges. 



IS 

16 



18 
19 
20 



Secretary will call the roll. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 



17 SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris 



21 SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

22 SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

23 SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

24 SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

25 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

26 SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

27 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is five to 2ero; 

28 



1 confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 
Good to see you, Julia. 

MS. WU: Thank you very much, Senators. 
4 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Our next nominee is the 

appointment of Mr. William F. Soo Hoo, Director of the 
Department of Toxic Substance Control, California Environmental 

7 Protection Agency. 

8 |j It's good to have you here today, Mr. Soo Hoo. We'll 

ask you the same question, why you feel you're qualified to 
assume this position. 

MR. SOO HOO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Senators . 



13 
14 

is 
16 

17 
IS 

20 
21 

23 

i 
24 

2ft 

27 
2X 



I have been looking forward to this opportunity to 
share with you my vision for the future of the Department of 
Toxic Substances Control and the changes we have already made 
during the Department's first year. 

Based upon my qualifications and the actions I have 
taken during the past year as Director, I seek your support for 
confirmation. 

Today I will share with you a synopsis of my personal 
qualifications, the results of our 90-day External Program 
Review, the highlights of the Department's reorganization, and a 
summary of the Department's accomplishments and the new 
directions being taken in our programs . 

My personal qualifications are well suited for the 
fiscal and technical challenges facing the Department. I am an 
economist and an attorney by training. I've received my Juris 



Doctorate from UC Davis Law School. My economics degree was 
awarded by UC Berkeley and provides the background and training 
needed to lead the Department through the state's current fiscal 



crisis . 

For the six years prior to being appointed Director, 
I served as Chief Counsel and Enforcement Coordinator for the 
Toxics Program. Consequently, I am well-versed on the complex 
environmental regulatory laws that are the heart and soul of the 
Department's work. 

My law enforcement background began with several 
years of work with the Oakland Police Department. I 
subsequently served six years as a deputy Attorney General, 
litigating state administrative issues. 

In 1986, I was appointed Chief Counsel of the Toxics 
Program. As Chief Counsel, my staff and I developed the "Toxic 
Ticket", which is a widely acclaimed, innovative enforcement 



x 
9 
10 
1 1 
12 
13 

14 

15 
16 



order issued in the field for less serious violations. I am 
also responsible for initiating the use of Federal Securities 



19 



24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



Exchange Commission reporting requirements to require major 



corporations to divulge hazardous waste management violations to 
z ! their shareholders. 

My training and my experience have prepared me to 
handle the challenges that face the Director of the Department. 

As you may recall, the Department was created in 
July, 1991. In the fall of 1991, Cal EPA Secretary James Strock 
and I convened a 90-day External Review of all the Department's 
programs in order to identify ways to improve the Department ' s 



3 

4 

(> 

7 

S 

9 

10 

il 

12 

13 

14 

\5 

I A 

17 

18 

I 1 ) 

20 



23 
24 
2> 
26 
27 
2X 



programs and to help shape the new Department. This review 
involved more than 100 external experts representing: business, 
environmental and public interest organizations; local 
government; and the Legislature. These external experts formed 
nine task forces that reviewed all of the Department's programs 
and processes. 

The Review Committee produced a 600-page report, 
containing over 200 recommendations. After receiving the Review 
Committee's report, my staff and I prepared a point-by-point 
response . Our response serves as a guide for the Department ' s 
planning and priority setting. My ensuing reorganization of the 
Department in July, 1992, was predicated on the recommendations 
of the 90-day External Review and my own evaluation of the 
Department's programs and processes. 

I solicited advice from all Department employees and 
had conversations with at least 200 of my staff from all of our 
offices. I have maintained this open-door policy to ensure that 
I continue to hear directly the viewpoints of my staff. 

The reorganization had to basic goals: first, to 
jcoordinate and centralize reporting relationships in order to 
| achieve statewide consistency; and second, to make the 
Department more open and responsive to community and industry 
input. 

In order to accomplish my reorganization goals, I 
imade several fundamental changes. First, our Permitting and 
!! Enforcement Programs have been consolidated into a comprehensive 
| Hazardous Waste Management Program. Our Alternative Technology 



■1 



Program has been reconstituted to focus externally on pollution 
prevention, new technologies, public participation, and 
regulatory assistance. 

I have also eliminated the independently directed 
regional office system. Each of the regional programs now 
report to a Deputy Director in Sacramento. This change has had 
the two-fold effect of ensuring consistent policy applications 

K among our regions, and has freed the former regional 
administrators to serve as ombudsmen to their regional 

10 communities. 

1 ' While the main thrust of the reorganization was 

12 designed to centralize policy making and planning for each 

13 program, I have also decentralized control of the administrative 

14 support resources, such as personnel, data processing, and 

15 business services. In this way, the resources needed to support 

16 the work of our line staff are more directly available to them 

17 and under their control. 

,K Now I will briefly address the accomplishments of the 

19 Department's programs over the past year and our new directions 
for the future. In the interest of time, I will simply 

21 highlight our key accomplishments and new initiatives. 

22 As recommended by the 90-day Review, I have expanded 
our Pollution Prevention Program. The focus of this effort is 
to foster the environmental protection technology industry in 
California. This effort is intended to put California business 
in a better strategic position to take advantage of the economic 
forces created by California's environmental regulatory 

28 



24 
25 
26 



.1 

4 
5 
6 

7 
K 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



programs . 

As you are aware, environmental regulatory programs 
are needed because normal economic forces do not assign value to 
the environment. Without regulatory programs, there are no 
natural economic forces that impose costs for degrading the 
environment . 

In response to environmental regulatory programs 
generally, we are witnessing the development of a world-wide 
environmental technology industry. California's strong 
regulatory standards demand the production of the most advanced 
environmental technology in the world, and California companies 
have a natural advantage in developing this cutting-edge 
technology. It is in the state's best interest to foster the 
continued growth of the California-based technology development 
industry. Not only will this program strengthen California's 
economy, but the resulting advanced technologies will further 
prevent pollution, and thereby minimize associated costs and 
health effects. 

In the final analysis, fostering the environmental 
protection technology industry in California will demonstrate 
that California's high standards can be a substantial 
environmental and economic advantage to the state. 

In the Hazardous Waste Management Program there are 
three of our accomplishments I wish to highlight: RCRA 
authorization; implementation of a tiered permitting program; 
and delegation of additional authority to local government. 

First, after year of seemingly futile effort, I 



3 

4 

3 

7 
8 

10 

1 1 



13 



15 



17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 



negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency which authorized the Department 
to administer the Federal RCRA Program in California. The 
Department now administers a unified state and federal 
permitting and enforcement program. This means that the 
Department now issues permits that are both state and federal 
permits. This consolidation not only saves government 
resources, but allows the regulated public to interact with only 
one government agency. 

Perhaps more important than achieving a unified 
permitting system is the fact that the Department, rather than 



12 the United States Environmental Protection Agency, now sets the 



priorities for the permitting and enforcement efforts in 



14 California. 






Second, working to implement last year's Assembly 



16 Bill 1772, the Department is moving quickly to implement a 



tiered permitting system based upon risk. Under the tiered 
permitting program, there are five different levels of 
permitting which will allow the level of permitting to be 
tailored to the risks posed by the substances and processes used 
by a company. The Department is holding statewide public 
workshops to ensure the effective initiation of this program 
within the timeframes mandated by AB 1772. 

24 Third, the Department has started an important pilot 

project to delegate more regulatory authority to the counties. 

^ The Department is delegating its administrative enforcement 

authority to eight pilot counties. The Department believes that 
28 



these delegations will result in a stronger local government 
role in environmental protection and regulation. In addition, 
in coordination with local agencies, the Department has set up a 
consolidated one-stop permitting program in Southern California 
as part of the Rebuild L.A. effort. 

Our State Superfund, or Site Cleanup Program, also 
made significant strides last year. As you know, we face an 
unprecedented challenge in addressing the cleanup of 13 closing 
military bases. California contains 17 of the 33 bases which 
are closing nationwide. No other state faces such a challenge. 

I am proud to report that over the last year, we have 

n ii 

■- successfully negotiated cleanup agreements with all the closing 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 

X 

9 

10 



13 

14 
15 
16 

17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
2X 



;military bases. These agreements prescribe the cleanup approach 

II 

ijand cleanup schedule for each base, and include a covenant to 
i 
provide federal funding of $15 million per year for the 

I Department ' s oversight costs. 

Also, working with Senator Calderon, the Department 
succeeded in obtaining approval of Senate Bill 2056, which 
provides a significant new incentive for responsible parties to 
cleanup contaminated sites. Senate Bill 2056 allows responsible 
parties who come forward and clean up a contaminated site to 
seek treble costs from uncooperative responsible parties. The 
cooperative responsible party shares half the judgment with the 
Department to provide funding for future cleanups. 

Coordination of site cleanup activities with local 
agencies is also underway. We are currently developing 
procedures to allow lower threat contaminated sites to be 



■i 



10 



cleaned up under the oversight of local government officials. 
This coordination of resources will significantly help 
facilitate the cleanup of smaller sites. 

Finally, the new initiatives which may ultimately 
prove to be the most important to the Department are two 
unprecedented planning efforts. First, the Department is 
developing its first strategic plan. Our strategic planning 
effort began in October of 1992, and will be completed early 
this year. 
10 Second, the Department's Science Advisor has been 

charged with advancing the level of science used by the 
Department. Specifically, we are developing a system for 
allocating the Department's resources based upon risk benefit 

14 analysis. When completed, the system will propose an allocation 

15 of resources based upon the comparative environmental benefit 
provided by each of the Department's programs. The University 
of California will be a consultant to the Science Advisor in 
this effort. 

In conclusion, I hope I have effectively presented an 



16 
17 
18 
19 

overview of the new Department. It is clear that we must pursue 
our priorities with increased productivity. I am fortunate to 
be in the unique position of having received clear, direct 
advice from the Department ' s stakeholders as a result of the 
90 -day External Review. 

I am proud of what my staff and I have accomplished 



in this first year, and I relish the opportunity to implement 
the Department's new directions that I have outlined today. 

28 



11 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

') 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IX 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2K 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators, for this 
opportunity to address your committee. I welcome any questions 
you may have. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Mr. Soo Hoo. 

Senator Wright is here to speak on Mr. Soo Hoo ' s 
behalf, I trust. 

SENATOR WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman and Members, I don't 
make it a habit — in fact, I can't ever recall coming before 
the Committee to speak on behalf of any appointee of the 
Governor's — but in this particular instance, since I was on 
the initial involvement of the establishment of the Toxics 
Committee on the Assembly side and was given the direction to be 
oversight of the Department at that time, I have to tell you the 
frustration that we went through for ten years of trying to get 
any input from the Department, because no matter what questions 
you asked, or what information you wanted, or what direction was 
given, you were always — a presentation was made before the 
Committee, but in reality you never got the information nor was 
any of the direction you offered ever accepted. 

In this instance, I served on the 90-day Review 
Committee. And in fact, I still serve on the continuation of 
that Committee. 

And this is the first time that I can truthfully say 
under Mr. Soo Hoo ' s direction that we have been able to 
truthfully see the committee process, wherein we do have an open 
Department. We can view what's going on. We can see what's 
being accomplished, and the accomplishments that's been made in 



12 



this last year are just tremendous. 

And I certainly would hope that this Committee would 
deem it advisable to support his position as Director of the 
Department, because indeed, what he has started has just been 
tremendous . 

Our task force that was called the 90-day Review 
Committee, there wasn't any question or any area within the 
Department that wasn't available to us. So, when that report 



R 



was made, it was made based on all the information before us. 



10 When that report did go out and be made public, it wasn't 

11 something that was placed on a shelf. The Department certainly 
has instituted and has gone forward to implement many of the 

• 3 suggestions that was made by the Department [sic], and is still 

14 working in a very open fashion for the Legislature and the 

15 people of the State of California. 

16 And I would really appreciate it if you would see it 

17 in your heart to support his appointment. 

18 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 
lv Is there anyone here in opposition? 

20 Do any of the Members have questions? Senator Ayala. 

21 SENATOR AYALA: There's a question submitted to us, 
Mr. Soo Hoo, on page 4, where it says: 



?*> 



23 "What is the status of the 

24 ' Superf und ' ... and what steps is the 

- J Department taking to ensure that the fund 

remains solvent in the foreseeable 
27 future? " 

2S 



13 






Did you answer that in your presentation? 

MR. S00 H00: I don't know the question. 



3 SENATOR CRAVEN: He would not have that. 



4 
5 



SENATOR AYALA: The question is, what is the status 
j of the Super fund, and what steps is the Department taking to 
() I ensure that the fund remains solvent in the foreseeable future? 

i! 

MR. S00 H00: Okay. 

The State Superfund requires that the Department 
clean up contaminated sites and also recover the costs. Under 
prior administrations, the cost recovery effort in the 
Department was not given the priority that it deserves . 

As recommended by the 90-day External Review, the 
Department under my directorship has adopted a policy of full 



8 
9 

10 
II 
12 

13 J 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IK 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

II 

24 
25 
26 

27 



cost recovery, and we have moved forward to enhance our cost 
recovery program. This includes automating the collection of 
costs within the Department's accounting system, which was just 
recently completed. We are in the process of -- of contacting 
with a private major accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, to do an 
audit of our cost recovery efforts and our accounting system, 
and to develop an automated cost recovery system. 

In addition, what we've managed — that passed last 
year, as I said in my opening statement, was Senate Bill 2056 
with the help of Senator Calderon, and that provides a 
significant incentive for private responsible parties not only 
to clean up sites, but also to seek cost recovery against 
uncooperative responsible parties, and half of the judgment 
would be shared with the Department. 



14 



1 So, those are some of the measures that have been 

taken to ensure that the State Superfund remains solvent. 

3 SENATOR AYALA: What progress has been made in 

4 Riverside County that pertains to the Stringfellow dump site, 
which is contaminated? Some of the funding coming from the 

Superfund has bene used to clean that up. 

Can you give us a progress report on how we're doing 
K there? 
9 MR. S00 H00: The Stringfellow site is a Federal 

10 Superfund site. And what has happened as far as the — that 

11 particular site is that the Department has implemented the 

•2 necessary measures so that there is no current risk being posed 
•3 to anyone in the community surrounding the Stringfellow site. 
14 This includes installing pump and treat systems, installing 
|S canals that twill make sure that the runoff avoids the 

16 contaminated areas, and we're in the process of reaching a final 

17 decision on what the cleanup will be at that site. 

'« SENATOR AYALA: Is it your Department that's 

19 providing bottled water for the people who live in that area? 

20 MR. S00 H00: Yes, that's part of — some of the 

21 measures that we've implemented. 

22 SENATOR AYALA: And isn't it our responsibility to 

23 find the original party that started the contamination? If not, 

24 then the Federal Superfund comes in. 

25 MR. S00 H00: Well, the Federal Superfund is 
involved, but as far as cost recovery, yes, we've been engaged 
in litigation over the cost of the cleanup at the Stringfellow 

28 



15 



1 site for many years now. And, in fact, the Stringfellow cost 
recovery action was one of the first actions, cost recovery 

3 actions, that the Department has initiated. 

4 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

s CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I have a letter here from a company 
in my district, DRC Drew Resources Corporation. Does that ring 



7 



13 



15 

16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 



->-> 



|a bell? They're having big problems trying to comply with 
various statutes, and problems in particular with SB 27 that 



9 I 



10 j'they feel conflicts with other parts of the law. 

11 They spent about $2*5 million trying to comply, and 
'- ij they' re not out of the woods yet. There's a long letter here, a 

copy of which was sent to you, but I'm sure you get a lot of 



14 ! letters. 



MR. S00 H00: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's dated December 30. 

MR. S00 H00: Senator, I can't say that I remember 
that letter at this point, but I will be happy to — to go back 
to my office and — and find out and get back to you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We'll see that you get a copy that 
we have . 

MR. S00 H00: Okay. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It addresses serious concerns about 
i the unpermitted and interim status situation in the precious 
metal recycling industry. That's one of those covered by 
Senator Wright's bill. 

Well, we can't explore it since you're not familiar 



23 
24 
2.S 
26 

27 
28 



4 
s 
6 
7 
8 
l ) 
10 
II 



16 



with it. I'd like to send you a copy and invite your reaction 
to it . 

MR. S00 H00: My — my sense is that probably is 
involved with the tiered permitting program that we're 
implementing. And the precious metal recyclers are, in fact, a 
group that we are sensitive to because we've heard from 
different companies within that industry. 

And the tiered permitting program is going to go 
forward with a good number of public workshops that we'll be 
conducting with the regulated members of that — of that 
industry, and we will be working with them to reach some 



'- resolution. 

13 SENATOR PETRIS: The letter quotes from the 90-day 

14 



15 
16 



External Program Review that you mentioned and quotes directly 
from it a couple of paragraphs here that seem to agree with the 
position he's taking on the dangers to the environment that are 
17 involved here. 

So anyway, we'll follow through on it. 

MR. S00 H00: I'll be more than happy to see what we 



19 



20 



can do. 



21 SENATOR PETRIS: I just have another question in a 

different area, administration. We've heard that the Cal EPA — 

2 -^ you're part of that? 

24 MR. S00 H00: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Has been making it a practice to 
borrow staff from various departments, and that sometimes 
interferes with the departmental operations . 

28 



17 



1 I guess that's a reaction to the recession, and the 

fact that we're all short of staff, so we beg, borrow and steal 
staff from where ever we can. But it seems to be seriously to 
the detriment of the borrowee. 

Do you have any knowledge of that? 

MR. S00 H00: Senator, I think that one — one of the 
effects that makes the use of staff and expertise amongst the 
Cal EPA organizations, as well as with — between the 
organizations and Cal EPA, is the fact that a good number of the 
organizations, including Cal EPA itself and my Department, are 
brand-new departments. We were created in July of 1991, and a 
lot of the processes and procedures that are established in a 
long-established organization are not established when you're a 
brand-new department. And so, it is not unnatural that a lot of 
effort and attention will be paid, including the use of staff 
and the exchange of staff, to deal with what is basically the 
problems of a brand-new organization. 

Cal EPA is brand-new. The Department of Toxic 
Substances Control is brand-new. The Office of Environmental 
Health Hazard Assessment is new. 

So, I think that some of what occurs is -- occurs 
naturally because of that circumstance. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Some of the personnel aren't new. 
They were transferred over from other departments; aren't they? 

MR. S00 H00: We — we have loaned some — some of 
our staff to help out with Cal EPA in setting up procedures, 
but, you know, the employees will be there for that term, and 



.s 
(> 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I I 
12 
13 

14 
15 
id 
17 
IS 
I 1 ) 



20 
21 



23 

24 
25 

26 

27 
2X 



18 

1 they will be returning to the Department. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Last year, during Secretary Strock's 
confirmation hearing, there were a lot of witnesses who 
complained about the impact of certain installations in 
different parts of the state on the environment. He promised to 
look into it and see what he could do to get it cleared up. 
One was the National Cement incinerator in Kern 
County, the impact of that on Antelope Valley. The Dow Chemical 
incinerator proposed for Martinez, and the Masonite Company in 

10 Ukiah. 

11 Are you familiar with any activities that are going 

12 on now in response to those complaints? 

13 MR. S00 H00: As far as the Dow Chemical incinerator, 

14 my understanding is that Dow — recollection is that Dow has 

15 withdrawn their permit application to operate that incinerator. 



17 
18 
19 



24 
25 

26 

27 
2X 



16 So, I don't believe that the Dow Chemical situation is in fact a 



current issue at this time. 

The Masonite Company in Ukiah, I believe, is a 
situation that involves some site cleanup effort, I believe, of 
the Department. And I'm not sure that I remember what the 
21 concern was expressed by the speaker at Secretary Strock's 
11 confirmation, so I'm not sure I can respond to that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, there were three different 
groups from different parts of the state, and they all talked 
about public health. It wasn't just cosmetic improvement of the 
environment, you know. It was direct impact on the health of 
the people in the area. 



19 



3 

4 
5 

7 
X 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IX 
I') 
20 
21 

23 
24 
25 
2(> 

27 
2X 



Maybe you could trace that back. 

MR. S00 H00: I will just have to check into what the 
allegation was, and I'll be happy to — 

SENATOR PETRIS: You might want to check with Mr. 
Strock, because he was familiar with it, and he said he would 
take action on it. And I assume that would mean he would ask 
you to do it. You might want to check with the boss. 

MR. S00 H00: Okay. 

As far as the National Cement facility, my 
recollection was that the concern over there was the issuance 
j— whether or not there would be an environmental impact report 
issued over the renewal of the permit, I believe, for National 
Cement . 

At this point in time, there still has been no final 
decision made on the permit renewal and whether or not an EIR 
will be required. 

What has occurred is that we have noticed a draft 
negative declaration, and that has — it will trigger — has 
triggered a comment period for the responsible government 
agencies. Later we will also be noticing a public comment 
period for the community and the public to submit comments as 
well . 

But certainly, we will be ensuring that our decision 
fully complies with what CEQA requires. If the information 

suggests that an environmental impact report is what ' s 

I 
appropriate, we will require an environmental impact report. 

And if the information and data suggest that a negative 



20 



declaration is required, we will proceed. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there anyone here in support of 
the nomination who wishes to come testify? If you could come 
forward and make your testimony brief. 

MR. GABRIEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. 

My name is Eddie Gabriel, representing the 
Asian/Pacific State Employees Association. 

I believe a formal letter has been sent to you from 
our current President, Mr. Patrick Lam, who is unable to be here 
today. 

My purpose for my attendance here today is to 
reaffirm our support of Mr. Soo Hoo ' s appointment to the 
directorship, and we respectfully request your favorable 



s 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

II 

12 
13 

14 



consideration . 



16 

17 
IS 
\9 
20 



22 



26 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 
Anyone else here in support? 
DR. McKONE: I have copies of this. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Please give it to the Sergeant, 
and he will distribute it. 



21 DR. McKONE: My name is Thomas E. McKone. I'm 



currently a Senior Scientist in the Environmental Sciences 



Division at the University of California Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory in Livermore. I'm also a lecturer and 

25 



associate with the Environmental Toxicology Department at the 



University of California, Davis. I have a Ph.D. from UCLA. 



Let me first state that the opinions I express here 



28 



21 



3 

4 

(> 
7 
8 
9 

10 
I I 
12 
13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
IS 
I*) 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
2S 
26 
27 
2X 



are my own and do not necessarily reflect policies of the 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the University of 
California, or the U.S. Department of Energy. 

I'm here today to testify in support of the 
appointment of Mr. William Soo Hoo as Director of the California 
Department of Toxic Substances Control, which I will refer to as 
DTSC. Through the health and regulatory research initiated and 
supported by DTSC, I have witnessed the very positive impact of 
Mr. Soo Hoo's leadership and the progressive use of new and 
innovative scientific findings and programs within the DTSC. 

As a scientist at the Environmental Sciences Division 
at Livermore, I have been involved in a number of national and 
international research programs, including those funded over the 
last five years by the DTSC and the predecessor program that 
was part of the Department of Health Services. In my own view, 
there is in the next decade a major opportunity facing the DTSC 

as well as other regulatory agencies dealing with toxic 

i| 

substances control and environmental protection. This 
opportunity has been noted by many, but may have best been 
stated recently when the New York Times f in an editorial, 
actually, addressed to Bill Clinton, made the following 
statement, quote: 

"Money and laws have not achieved 

: : 

consensus on environmental control . 

i 1 

America is swimming with green activists 

and with energetic critics who believe 

that the cleanliness campaign exacts too 



22 



( great a toll on jobs and economic growth. 

Our opportunity now is to bridge the gap 
I ... enabling the government to fulfill its 

4 historic role as custodian of the nation's 

s natural resources. It means setting 

priorities that reflect real, not 
imagined, risks. It means sticking to 
well-articulated goals." 
g In my work with the DTSC under Mr. Soo Hoo's 

)() leadership, I have already seen this important opportunity 
l'l articulated. One clear example of this effort is his creation 
of the Office of the Science Advisor. The creation of this 
office and its role in providing counsel to the Director is, I 
believe, an important step for ensuring that sound scientific 



6 



H 



s data and analysis are part of the DTSC's regulatory actions. 



lb 

17 



Clearly, the priority has been set on science and realistic 
assessment of risk as a means of bridging the gap between the 
, 8 need for environmental protection and the need for streamlining 

19 



regulation. 



20 

21 



Over the past year, I've had the privilege of working 
with the DTSC's Office of the Science Advisor to develop a 
scientifically defensible but relative simple process for 

23 setting cleanup goals at hazardous waste sites. This process, 

24 which is names "CalTOX", allows for real-world scientific 

2s considerations and was designed to avoid the use of excessively 
-»f, conservative approaches, but focus instead on expected outcomes 
27 and the precision with which they can be defined. This more 

28 



23 



1 realistic approach avoids the use of highly conservative methods 
that might lead to excessive regulation or to a misallocation of 
- 1 societal resources. 
4 This work was carried out in a cost effective manner. 



■* We completed the major development work for around 200,000. 

(l In contrast, the U.S. Department of Energy is now 

spending millions of dollars, and not at Livermore, by the way, 
for a similar effort. This DTSC-sponsored research has been 
given extensive scientific peer review, and the comments have 

10 been laudatory. To quote from a few, for example, from the 

11 ijCarnegie-Mellon University, they stated, quote: 

12 "CalTOX represents a significant 

13 scientific advance for integrated 

14 environmental fate and exposure models of 
l> this type. The comprehensive coverage of 
l(> potential exposure routes is particularly 
17 noteworthy. This is a model that can 



IX 



^s 



27 

:x 



rightfully be viewed as a repository for 



|C) much of the current knowledge of 

i 
:<) environmental pollution and exposure 

21 



processes. Furthermore, the approach for 
characterizing uncertainty is appropriate 



-* and effective." 



End quote. 



And from the Office of Research and Development of 

2h 



the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we received this 
comment, quote: 



24 



4 
5 
6 
7 
8 



"This work is impressive in terms of the 
scope of effort and technical innovation. 
The model promises to be an important 
tool. The model is comprehensive in its 
treatment of the transport, transfer, and 
transformation of soil contaminants; the 
mass balance equations were carefully and 
correctly developed." 
End quote. 



I should also add that this work has begun to attract 
international attention, both in the Americas and in Europe. 
'- In summary, let me emphasize my perspective as an 

environmental scientist that, in a time when fiscal resources 
are limited, an agency such as DTSC must balance the need for 
environmental protection with the need to foster a healthy 
economic climate by minimizing cumbersome regulations. In my 



17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



own view, this balance is best served when the DTSC relies on 
science-based standards and a process for addressing the limits 
of precision in the science that supports the risk assessment. 

Under Mr. Soo Hoo ' s leadership, the DTSC has moved in 
advance of other regulatory agencies to embrace this important 
opportunity. Again, I am here to testify in support of Mr. Soo 



21 

Hoo ' s appointment. Your support of his appointment will, in my 
view, allow DTSC to maintain its scientific leadership in risk 

25 

assessment and risk management. 

Thank you for providing me an opportunity to testify. 
SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much. 



2K 



25 



1 Anyone else? Come forward, state your name, please. 

2 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Senator Craven. 

* I'm Peter Weiner. I'm presently Chairman of the 

4 Environmental Department at Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, a 

s west coast law firm. 

i 

f> I've been involved in toxics policy legislation and 

implementation for the last 13 years here in Sacramento. And 

x I I'm here to support Mr. Soo Hoo ' s confirmation. 
i} Bill has a unique combination of environmental vision 

10 that is incredibly creative, inclusionary process, and very 

11 tough-minded enforcement and practical management. I don't 

12 think we've ever seen this kind of leadership at the Department 
'- 1 before, or when it was part of the Department of Health 



14 Services. It is certainly welcome to see it now. 
|S Over the last year, the 90-day Review Committee that 

l(> Bill talked about at some length really was a very important, 

17 innovative process. It wasn't your good old blue-ribbon 

IX 

i ( ) 



committee. It truly was a working committee that resulted in 
changes in the Department that the Department has implemented. 

I think these changes, in all fairness, have resulted 



both in the streamlining that is often talked about, but also in 
more environmental protection, more tough-minded enforcement, 
and more discussions and open doors for both the environmental 
24 community, scientists, and industry. 

The Office of Science Advisor, which has been 
referred to at some length, the same. 



27 
2K 



The environmental technology initiative that Mr. Soo 



26 



Hoo has been involved with is not only innovative but essential, 
because it truly is the way we can save our planet. 

I hope you will support Mr. Soo Hoo ' s confirmation. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you, sir. 

MR. PIATEK: Good afternoon. My name is Steve 
Piatek, and I'm the Environmental Health and Safety Manager for 
Huntway Refining Company. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak 
today in support of Mr. Soo Hoo ' s confirmation as Director of 
11 the Department of Toxic Substances Control. 



i 



13 
14 

15 



21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
2S 



By way of background, Huntway is a small independent 
refiner based in the Los Angeles area. The company also has 

manufacturing facilities in the San Francisco Bay area. 

i 
The company is a member of the Western States 



16 Petroleum Association, the Western Independent Refineries 

Association, and the California Coalition of Independent Marine 
Terminals and Refiners. All the groups as well as Huntway 
recognize and believe that environmental protection and economic 
growth are not mutually exclusive. My comments today represent 
the views of those groups and myself. 

California's environmental programs are unique. 
They're some of the most stringent in the nation, and rightly 
so. We as Calif ornians have much to protect. 

California's economy is also unique. It was once the 
envy of the nation, but currently it's languishing. 

This does not mean that we should give up or roll 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
X 
l ) 
10 j 

n 

II 

i! 

12 

ii 

13 

14 
15 
16 

17 
IX 
l<) 
20 
21 
22 

21 

|| 

25 
26 

27 



27 



back environmental programs. On the contrary, the majority of 
the state's regulations are sound, but as with all programs, 
they need to be constantly fine-tuned and upgraded. 

In order to develop environmentally as well as 
economically sensitive programs, the various stakeholders need 
to be able to communicate their concerns. Mr. Soo Hoo has 
worked hard to bring both industry and the environmentalists 
together during the development of regulatory initiatives and to 
evaluate the Department ' s existing programs . The Department has 
established an advisory committee to provide ongoing input to 
the Department on its regulatory programs . The committee ' s 
membership includes all the stakeholders, and as time goes on, 
will be an important filtering mechanism. 

I've been involved with numerous governmental 
advisory committees as a technical representative of the trade 
associations I mentioned previously. Of all the agencies I have 
worked with in my 14 -year environmental career, the Department 
especially under Mr. Soo Hoo ' s leadership has been the most 
aggressive in soliciting public input early in the process and 
being responsive to that input. 

Under Mr. Soo Hoo ' s leadership, the Department has 
headed out in new directions, establishing new environmental 
regulatory programs, but recognizing the existence of current 
controls, and soliciting and listening to the views of the 
various stakeholders . 

Bill has a challenge before him to meet the state's 
unique regulatory mandates, yet ensuring that the regulatory 



4 

5 

(i 

7 
8 

10 
II 
12 
13 

14 

15 
16 

17 
IS 
19 



28 



burdens on the state businesses are hold to practical limits. 

I believe Mr. Soo Hoo ■ s background, knowledge, and 
vision to carry out these programs — excuse me, has the 
knowledge and vision to carry out these programs in an effective 
manner. The groups I represent and I strongly support Mr. Soo 
Hoo's confirmation as Director of DTSC. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much. 

Anyone else? Yes, sir. 

DR. GREENBERG: Good afternoon, Members of the 
Committee. 

I'm Dr. Alvin Greenberg. I'm a toxicologist from 
Marin County, and I'm a technical consultant to the Planning and 
Conservation League. 

I believe you have in your file a letter of support 
for the confirmation of Mr. Soo Hoo from our Executive Director, 
Jerry Meral . 

I thank you for the opportunity to say a few words to 
you this afternoon. 

I, too, was a member of the 90-day Review Committee, 



and I also sit as a member of the Director's present Program 



21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Review Committee. I also had been working on the advisory 
committee for the integrated site mitigation project which was 
two years ago. Therefore, I am speaking with personal knowledge 
and experience, having conducted an in-depth review of the 
Department and continuing an ongoing in-depth review of the 
Department, that Mr. Soo Hoo does indeed deserve your 
confirmation for his appointment. 



s 

ft 



I 



29 



1 There were two things that I personally pushed on 

behalf of the Planning and Conservation League that Mr. Soo Hoo 

! ! 

grasped and elevated to a status that we feel is justified. One 
of those is regulatory assistance for small business, and the 
other is pollution prevention program, which we feel is the key 
to controlling hazards and risks to human health and the 

7 li 

' environment before they occur. And Mr. Soo Hoo has pushed these 

ij 

| programs, elevated them to the level which we think is 
appropriate, and for that we thank him. And I think it's also a 
reflection of his commitment to environmental protection and 
public health protection. 

I also want to say in all honesty that we're not 
going to get — we don't expect to get everything that we ask 
for from Mr. Soo Hoo. Goodness knows, Planning and Conservation 
League doesn't get everything it asks for from the people of the 
State of California when we co-sponsor ballot initiatives. But 



9 

10 

ii 

12 
13 
14 
15 
I ft 



17 nevertheless, we feel that we will always be heard by Mr. Soo 



is 



Hoo, and we trust that he will fully implement both the spirit 



ilas well as the intent of the environmental protection laws that 



20 



25 
26 

27 
28 



this Legislature passes. 

With that, I want to thank you, and again, I urge 
your confirmation of his appointment. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you, Doctor. 

Anyone else? Yes, sir. 

MR. KNIGHT: I'll briefly paraphrase some comments 
I've provided in writing. 

My name is Mel Knight, Director of Environmental 



8 
9 

10 

II 
12 
13 



15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 









30 



Health and Chief of Hazardous Materials for the County of 
Sacramento. I'm briefly going to speak to you relative to my 
unique perspective, having done a decade of service to this 
state, as well as to local government at which I've worked both 
within and outside of the County and state government programs 
in environmental regulatory affairs. I've had an occasion of 
that to include a term of Chief of Enforcement for the State 
Toxics Program in Southern California. 

During that tenure, I've had extensive experience 
with Mr. Soo Hoo, at which time I've found him to be 
conscientious, competent, and well qualified for the role. For 
that reason, I'm advocating his appointment. 

I would like to also reiterate what Senator Wright 



14 mentioned. I think it's very important that this stability of 



an appointment be made as promptly as possible. The program is 
involved in rapid change and many demands. 

The unique perspective I'd like to offer would be 
that I think Bill will be working for the advocacy of reduction 
of duplication and maximizing the resource work with local 
government. And I think that's an important issue in this era 
of declining resources. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much, sir. 

Yes, ma'am. 

MS. SPARKS: I have a horrible cold, so I'm going to 
try getting through my presentation and be as brief as I 
possible can. 



31 



My name is Jody Sparks. I'm the President of the 
jToxics Assessment Group, a small consulting firm in Davis. It's 
(generally known as TAG. TAG works with a wide variety of 
clients, including industry, law firms, the Attorney General's 
Office, municipalities, environmental groups, and grassroots 
organizations . 

I sit on a number of advisory groups for Cal EPA and 



the Department of Toxics. TAG has never before taken a position 



y 

10 



ii 

12 
1.1 

14 
IS 
16 

17 
18 
I') 
20 



2.1 

24 
25 

26 

27 
2X 



on any nominee for any elective or appointive job. However, I 
am pleased to support Bill Soo Hoo for the position of Director 
of the Department of Toxics. 

As you are aware, the Department of Toxic Substances 
Control is faced with many conflicting demands. It has the 
responsibility to try to fix toxics problems of the past, 
prevent problems from developing in the future, and to establish 
and operate programs which provide appropriate regulation of 
toxic users and handlers without being unnecessarily onerous. 
Complicating all of this is the tremendous public interest that 
exists about toxics issues which results in close public 
scrutiny of virtually all actions taken by the Department. 

I believe that Bill Soo Hoo understands all of these 
demands and works to deal in good faith with them. One of his 
particular strengths is his sensitivity to all sides of the 
issue. He makes sure that not only businesses and industry 
interests, but grassroots, community, and environmental groups 
have opportunities to provide input into the policy issues and 
major program decisions. He makes real efforts to provide 



32 



bodies for Cal EPA and the Department. Bill Soo Hoo 
consistently demands that all viewpoints be represented on these 
bodies, which makes the discussions quite interesting, but 
assures the outcomes have the benefit of all opinions. 

Let me give you some specific examples of the 
Department's responsiveness under Bill Soo Hoo's leadership. 
Access to information has been my forte for years, and it's very 
important that community groups and members of the public in 
general have access to information on facilities in their 
neighborhoods . 

There is supposed to be free access to most 
information under the Federal Freedom of Information Act and the 
State Public Records Act. Unfortunately, implementation of 
these acts is not always consistent or correct. I have been 
trying for seven years to get the Department of Toxics to issue 
formal guidelines for the implementation of the Public Records 
Act so that seekers of information will know exactly what 
they're dealing with and how to proceed. Under Bill Soo Hoo's 
leadership, guidance for the Department — guidelines for the 
Department have been drafted and it will be issued shortly. 
That's a great accomplishment. 

Another issue of importance to community groups is 
dealing with permits, and particularly the appeals processes. 



3 

S 

7 
K 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IK 
I*) 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
2K 



33 



Permits have to do with — permits having to do with toxics 
issues are often controversial, and sometimes there are efforts 
to use the established process simply to frustrate an applicant. 

Under Bill Soo Hoo, the Department has issued a 
guidance document for industrial or community interests who wish 
to appeal permit approvals, permits that have been approved. 
This is typical of Soo Hoo's efforts to make the rules clear to 
everyone. Applicants, supporters, opponents, and interested 
parties can all know what the rules are by using this document. 
Community members know when they should provide input into the 
process; applicants know what they must be — what they could be 
facing; and frivolous, untimely comments and appeals are 
minimized. 

I support Bill Soo Hoo for the position of Director 
of the Department of Toxics, and thank you for your attention 
and putting up with my voice. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much. We hope your 
cold improves. Your voice was fine. 

Is there anyone else? 

I think we've probably wrung out all the accolades 
that you could possibly receive. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you, Senator Beverly. 

Senator Beverly moves the confirmation of William F. 
Soo Hoo to the Floor. 

Will you call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 



5 

4 

5 

6 

7 
S 

10 

II 
12 
13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
IK 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



34 



SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Let's keep the roll open for Senator 
Roberti, because I think he would like to cast a vote on this. 

Thank you very much, Bill. 

MR. SOO HOO: Thank you very much. 

[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Craven moves that the roll 
be opened on the confirmation of William Soo Hoo. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is five to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

The next appointment is that of James Wells, Director 
of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, California 
Environmental Protection Agency. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I have a statement here from 
Mr. Hemly in support of Mr. Wells, and he wants it to become a 
part of the record. 



35 



3 

4 

S 

6 

7 

X 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IK 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2X 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Wells, we'll ask you what we 
ask all the Governor's appointees, and that is why you feel 
you're qualified to assume this position? 

MR. WELLS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Members. 

Thanks for the opportunity to come here and review my 
qualifications for you today. 

I believe I am well qualified to be the Director of 
the Department of Pesticide Regulation. I've been in this 
business for 20 years, and I have a lot of experience right from 
the field on up. I worked as an inspector in Fresno, starting 
in 197 3, and spent seven years out there with f ieldworkers, with 
growers in the field, learning the workplace. 

I believe I also have a vision for the future 
direction of the Department and pest management in general for 
the future. I believe that the Department of Pesticide 
Regulation has to regulate and enforce the laws, but I also 
believe that we're in a unique position to be a leader and a 
facilitator in transitioning both agricultural and 
nonagricultural pest control into a more environmentally benign 
and health protective business. 

As I said, I started, after I got out of UC Davis, in 
1972, I started in the field with the old Ag Chem and Feed 
Group in the Department of Food and Agriculture in Fresno. I 
was an inspector. I did residue work for about three years, and 
residue investigations, and then eventually broadened out into 
more general pest control or pesticide use investigations. 

I helped build cases against pest control operators 



I 

4 

5 
6 

7 
K 
9 
10 
II 
12 
LI 



15 

16 
17 
IK 
19 
20 

21 

n 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



36 



for negligent drift that resulted in license suspensions. I 
worked with Cal OSHA to successfully uphold fines against 
doctors who failed to report pesticide illnesses. I believe 
that was the one and only time that's been done, back in about 
1975 or '6. 

I wrote regulations to control drift into farm labor 
camps and urban areas, and I culminated my field experience with 
a year's stint with the Department of Justice, investigating the 
illegal sales of DBCP in the Fresno area in the southern Valley, 
actually. That resulted in a sting operation, and we had 
successful criminal and civil prosecutions result from that. 

In 1981, I came up to Sacramento as the Program 
Supervisor in the then Worker Safety Branch of the Department of 



14 Food and Agriculture. I was there only about six months, and I 



went back to Pesticide Enforcement as a Branch Chief, first 
acting and then permanent Branch Chief in Sacramento, and I held 
that position for about eight years. 

During that period of time, we doubled the Pesticide 
Residue Program and actually created what became a food safety 
program in the long run. We created an annual Pesticide Residue 
Report that was meaningful to the reader for the first time that 
that had been done since 1921. And we increased civil and 
criminal penalties for pesticide violators. 

In 1988, I became the Assistant Division Chief under 
Rex McGee, again in the Department of Agriculture, Pest 
Management Division. I got a more comprehensive view of the 
entire process in my years in that capacity, and I also became 



28 

i 



37 



4 

6 

7 
8 
9 

10 

II 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
20 
27 
2X 



involved with U.S. EPA and several national pest control groups 

|! involving pest control officials from around the United States, 
I 
task forces on pesticide worker safety, on certification and 

training of applicators, et cetera. I still maintain good 

! relations on the national level with the American Association of 

Pest Control Officials; I'm the President Elect of that 

organization . 

When the new Cal EPA was formed and the Department of 
Pesticide Regulation formed with it, I became the interim 
Director and then the Director since January, and I've held that 
— it's obviously the first time that position has been there, 
so I'm the only one. I don't have any predecessors in that 
position. 

We did take the entire Division of Pest Management 
from Food and Ag and moved it into Cal EPA, with the exception 
of a small unit of bio control people who remain in Food and 
Agriculture. 

As I said, I believe I know the regulatory business 
from the ground up. I've been out in the field with 
fieldworkers, and I've been in corporate boardrooms with 
corporate farmers. I think I understand the problems of both. 
I understand the problems of agricultural urban interface that 
so often pop up out there in the field. 

I am proud of the fact that we have the best program 
in the nation, but I do believe it can get better and it has to 
jiget better. I think we're transitioning into an era where pest 
'control is going to be less reliant on chemicals and more 



38 



reliant on pest management techniques. They're going to be more 
complex, but they're going to be environmentally friendly and 
probably healthier for everybody. 

I think we have to search for those techniques. I 
think we have to encourage them in the Department. I think 
that's part of Cal EPA ' s role in this whole — in this whole 
ball game. 

I believe that realistic pesticide regulation should 
be based on science. I think it should be administered fairly 
and firmly. 

I think I have — I think it ' s going to take a strong 
knowledgeable leadership and a broad constituency, bringing in 
elements that we really never brought into this picture before, 
to go forward and go where we have to go. 

I think I'm qualified to provide that leadership, and 
I thank the Committee for their consideration. I'd be happy to 
answer any questions . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: A few questions, Mr. Wells. Things 
I've gone over with you in the past, I'm sure, but I'd like to 
have an update and see what's going on presently, and what 
you're looking at in the future. 

First, I go back to the statute, Section 13129 of the 
Food and Agriculture Code, gives the Director, which now means 
you, the authority to cancel or suspend any substance if a study 
shows that the health effects -- a study of the active 
ingredients shows that a pesticide product containing the active 

28 



\ 
4 

5 

h 

7 
8 

g 
10 
II 
12 
13 

14 

15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



•V) 



24 
25 



39 



3 

4 

S 

<> 

7 

X 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IX 

19 

20 

21 

->■> 

23 
24 
25 
2(> 

27 
28 



ingredient presents significant adverse health effects, 
including reproduction, birth defects, or infertility, 
abnormalities . 

Now, to go back a little bit, we had SB 950 over 
which there was a considerable tussle, but it's been in place 
for some time to fill the data gaps. Some of the companies 
complied immediately, the chemical manufacturers. Others 
struggled against it, and some still are. Most of them have 
filled the data gaps, so we know now a lot of information about 
the characteristics of pesticides that we didn't know before. 

It turns out that some of them have very serious 
birth defects and some of them don't. Some of them are inclined 
ito tilt toward cancer. 

And then what your Department did was to develop a 
list. You have 46 high priority active ingredients, which means 
they're pretty toxic under the SB 950 definition, and indicate 
that these 46 have possible adverse effects of the kind we're 
talking about. One of them is benemil, classified high priority 
due to possible adverse effects on the things we're talking 
about . 

I'm mostly now in the area of birth defects. Worried 
about unborn children. 

Now, the first question I have, out of these 46, have 
you cancelled any of them that fall in this category of the bad 
ones? 

MR. WELLS: No. That list ~ the last list of 46 
came out, I think, last June, is — it's what left of the high 



40 



1 priority chemicals. 

Basically we prioritize whenever we need to, and it 
generally is about a couple times a year. As new chemicals come 
in, new information comes in, we re-prioritize that list. So, 
that list of the remaining 36, 32 of them are currently in the 
6 risk assessment process in one phase or another. 

The priority list -- the criteria is that there be an 
indication of a significant adverse effect in — in an animal. 
And also, part of that is based on the amount of use. So, it 
isn't necessarily — those aren't necessarily the most toxic, 
1 ' but the ones that have indications of problems and widespread 
'- use. 

13 We have under 950, which is just one of the reasons 

14 we do risk assessment, we've completed 8 risk assessments under 

15 950, and 4 of the chemicals of those 8 have been withdrawn from 
the market either during or at the conclusion of those risk 

17 assessments. So, 9 have been completed, and the 46 on that list 

18 are the ones we're working on. And we've got 32 of those in the 

19 process right now. 
SENATOR PETRIS: Four were withdrawn by the companies 



20 



themselves when they saw the reports; right? 



22 
23 

24 
25 
26 
27 



MR. WELLS: Well, yeah, that's right. 

See, the way it works is, we don't have to have all 
the data in for a particular chemical before we start doing a 
risk assessment. We just have to have enough data that we can 
do a quantitative risk assessment. 



In some cases, we got — some cases might be one 

28 



41 



3 

4 

ft 

7 
X 

y 

10 

1 1 

12 
13 
14 
IS 
I ft 
17 
IS 
19 
20 



23 
24 
25 
2(> 

27 
2X 



study. We may get one study that's a good study, complete 
study, that shows an adverse effect that it's clear enough for 
us to do for a -- quantitative enough for us to do a risk 
assessment. And then, if that risk assessment indicates a 
significant adverse effect, we take action. 

I can cite one particular chemical called cyhexadon, 
that when we got to the point where we decided it was a 
significant problem, we notified the company we were going to 
initiate action. They withdrew from California, and then they 
withdrew their registration at U.S. EPA, so they're out 
nationally. 

So, that's — that's kind of the way it's been going 
in California. We never get to the cancellation process. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I guess your answer is, none of them 

I 
has been cancelled by the state? 

'I 

MR. WELLS: None on that list of 46, but there are 32 

that are in the process of assessments. 

See, once we get the — the information on the list 
that indicates a possible adverse effect is sometimes — it 
could be anything from maybe a couple of pups in a litter had 
low birth weight, to something that is — that's more dramatic. 
The fact that it shows up in an adverse effect is the starting 
point for us to require the data under your bill, and then to 
evaluate that data when it comes in. 

And what I'm saying is, for 32 of those 46, we're in 
the evaluation process. We have to look at the data that comes 
in, the studies themselves, and then the exposure potential, 



42 



which is another part of the risk characterization process that 
was set up under the Birth Defects Act. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you walk me through the process? 
You have 32 of them now that are going, that because of the 
reports that have come in by the independent study indicate 
possible adverse effect. You want to know for sure whether it's 
just possible, or highly likely? 

8 MR. WELLS: Basically the — 

9 SENATOR PETRIS: What is this evaluation process 

10 consist of? 

11 MR. WELLS: It's what we call a risk characterization 

12 process. It consists of several different parts. 

13 One part we call hazard identification. The reason 
those chemicals got on the list is because in some study or 

15 another, probably even prior to the advent of the Birth Defects 

16 Prevention Act, there was some study that showed a potential 

adverse effect. That gets them on the list, and we ask for the 

i 

18 data on a priority basis under the act. 

19 When that data comes in, we have what we call an 

20 exposure assessment phase, where we look at the use practice, 

i 
the use pattern, to see what the exposure is. And we have a 

r) I 

risk identification phase where we — or hazard identification, 

where we see what's the basic toxicity of this chemical. 



24 You have to relate — because all these studies are 

done on animals, you have to try to relate the effect in an 
animal to an equivalent effect in humans. So, you have to 
develop a no effect level, and try to determine what the human 

28 



43 



.1 
4 

6 

7 

8 

M 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

U> 

17 

IX 

l ( ) 

20 



23 
24 
2S 
2(» 

27 
2X 



exposure is, and then is there a possibility that this effect 
can occur in human beings . 

That's the point where we drop the hammer on them. 
SENATOR PETRIS: How do you do that? Is that a 
mathematical process? You put a multiplier in and say it takes 
this much more for the humans? 

MR. WELLS: Well, it depends on the type of toxicity, 
but that ' s roughly the way you do it . 

If it's a potential cancer causer, the assumption is 
|jthat it will cause — there is some finite risk of it causing 
cancer at any level. And so there, you have to draw up — you 
Ijhave to rely on what we consider to be a negligible risk level, 
and for our purposes, and it's commonly accepted in science 
right now, to use one in a million or one in a hundred thousand, 
depending on the circumstances and the strength of the studies. 

So for cancer, you look at what is the relative risk, 
and you have a cutoff where the risk is unacceptable. 

For a noncancer effect, where there's actually a 
| threshold, you look at the no effect level on animals; you add a 
[multiplier of ten-fold for the difference between animals and 
people, and then you add another multiplier factor of ten-fold 
for the difference in the human population from, say, the 
weakest human being to the strongest. So, you end up with a 
margin of safety of a hundred. 

So, for effects like birth defects, or acute toxicity 
I effects, you're looking for a margin of safety of a hundred. If 
you don't make that margin of safety, that's when you take your 



s 



7 
8 

10 
I I 
12 
13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
IK 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



44 



suspension or your cancellation action. In this case, it would 
be cancellation. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm aware of the three that we're 
looking at: cancer, reproductive effect, and birth defects. 

Right now, I'm more concerned about birth defects. 
That's what triggered the whole bill with organizations like the 
March of Dimes, and, you know, all the medical people that were 
very concerned about the possible effect of these. 

Now, is the principle source of making this list the 
independent lab tests that are done as required by this law by 
the manufacturers themselves, or are there other sources also? 

MR. WELLS: It's primarily that, but we do take — 
when we're doing the prioritization process, that's the process 
where we in the Department sit — used to sit down with Health 
Services, and now we sit down with the Office of Environmental 
Health Hazard Assessment in Cal EPA. And we look at the data 
that's — the data that's submitted, whatever 's in the file. If 
new data comes in, that can cause us to re-prioritize. That new 
data could come from the registrant, or it could come from the 
open literature, because in the prioritization process, we don't 
have to rely only on the registrant's data. 

More than likely, though, new studies are done at the 
behest of the registrant, so it is registrant data that causes 
us to re-prioritize. 

But the original prioritization process took place 
way back in 1985 or '6, when we didn't have much data, but we 
were having — you know, we had to have that original list of 



45 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I! 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

Id 

17 

18 

l<) 

20 

21 
it 

23 
24 

25 
26 

27 
28 



200 and then prioritize within that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The bill was passed in '84. 

i| 

MR. WELLS: So, it's '85-86. I wasn't in this 

I 

capacity at that time, so I don't know. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So, the hammer that you describe 
hasn't been dropped yet on any of these? 

MR. WELLS: Well, as I said, there were — there were 
!a number of them that we would have dropped the hammer, but they 
pulled them off the market. And that's commonly our experience 
in California because, to some extent, these companies that are 
! operating nationwide and worldwide would rather pull out of 
California than face a cancellation hearing in California. 
SENATOR PETRIS: What's the action or tentative 

I! 

action on the part of the Department that caused them to 
li ■ 
]i withdraw? Did they see the handwriting on the wall, or did they 

I get communication from you on the phone that says, "Hey, this is 

a real bad ingredient, and we're really not going to let you 

sell this in California," or, "You better do this and that," as 

a friendly warning, and then they'd drop it out? 

MR. WELLS: There's no really friendly warning. We 
basically — we notify them of the outcome of our — of our risk 
assessment. Or, in some cases, to tell you the truth, the fact 
that we're doing a risk assessment causes the company to do 
their own risk assessment, and that's caused them to withdraw, 
and we've dropped the product. 

There's a product called Captival which we were in 
the process of doing a risk assessment. We came up with what we 



v 



13 



17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 



27 
28 



46 



felt was an unacceptable dietary exposure, and the company 
decided -- they looked at it themselves and apparently agreed 
without ever saying so. They just kind of pulled it out. It's 
kind of a no contest thing. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that one of the four? 

MR. WELLS: No, that was — that's an additional one, 



because we didn't do Captival because of 950. We had a 



re-evaluation for some other purpose. So, it wasn't one of the 



4 950. 



Of the 950 ones that we've completed, the four are: 
Amitrol, Fulpek, Cyhexadon, and I can't remember the other one. 
They're not on that priority list because they were already 
dropped before that priority list was created. 

14 SENATOR PETRIS: Where do you go from here with this 

|S list of 46? You've got 32 in the process. 

Ih MR. WELLS: Yeah, and that's all the way from an 

exposure assessment is being created in our Worker Safety 
Branch, to a hazard identification and a med tox. So, I don't 
know the exact progress of every one of those, but where we go 
is, we complete the risk assessment. We calculate whether 
there's an unacceptable risk. We calculate whether there are 
any mitigation measures that would — would make the risk 
acceptable, and if not, then they go out. 



24 We don't have a risk benefit standard in California, 

where we say, "Well, the risk is unacceptable, but the benefit's 

26 



greater than the risk." We just have a risk-risk standard as 
set up by the legislation that was passed. 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
X 

10 
I! 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 

21 

->-> 

23 

24 

25 
26 
27 
2X 



47 



SENATOR PETRIS: We have an economic standard. If it 
imposes a hardship on the company, they can still use it, unless 
there's an alternative; right? 

MR. WELLS: That's only for that limited area that we 
took care of in 550 in your bill last year, yeah. That's — 
!that's an extension of time to complete the data, but they still 
have to complete the data. 

At the federal level, the Federal Insecticide, 
iFungicide, Pesticide Act has an absolute economic impact 
(standard, where they will keep something on the books, keep it 
fin use if there's a significant economic benefit that they feel 
| outweighs the risk. 

What we have in 550 is, we give them more time to get 
the data in, but they still have to do it. And if it's 
unacceptable, the risk is unacceptable, it still goes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have there been any exceptions 
granted by the Director based on the economic standard? 

MR. WELLS: We've granted — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Remember, the wording says if it 
causes grave — 

MR. WELLS: Extensions, we call them extensions. And 
I had a cheat sheet on that, but I don't know, I lost it 

somewhere. 

I 

I think we've granted — we've granted 9 extensions, 
and we've turned down 10 so far, and we've granted one deferral. 
Remember, we had the extensions of time if they'd submitted 8 
i studies and it showed good faith, and then we had the deferral 



48 



for hardship. We got one deferral that we have granted. None 
that we've denied, but we've got 12 under consideration. 

Of the 10 extensions that we denied, 9 of them 
submitted a deferral. So, we're still going through the process 
with them. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The extension is to give them more 
time to work up — 

MR. WELLS: Get the data in. 

We've also got a complete data set for 16 of those 57 
that we noticed in January. 

SENATOR PETRIS: A complete what? Data set? 

MR. WELLS: They've submitted a complete set of data. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And now you're analyzing the data? 

MR. WELLS: Right. Well, in the priority. That just 
goes into the whole priority hopper. And I don't know if 
they're on that list of 46 or not. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How long are the extensions 
normally? 

MR. WELLS: Oh, I think they're granted not to exceed 
— the longest one could be no more than four years from January 
1st or January 15th. I can't remember the language. But it 
can't go beyond 1995; that's absolute cutoff. 

Most of them are averaging two years before the data 
will be completed. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How many scientists are there on 
your staff? 

MR. WELLS: We have positions for about 30 



4 

7 
X 

10 

I I 



13 

14 

15 

16 

17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



28 



17 
IX 

iy 

20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



49 



1 [toxicologists, and then there are a number of staff scientists 
jjwho are not toxicologists who work in either the exposure 
assessment or the hazard I.D. 

SENATOR PETRIS: But they're competent to review the 
reports they get? 

MR. WELLS: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And judge the authenticity of the 
protocols that they use, and all that, whether they're 
toxicologists or not? 

MR. WELLS: Well, the final decisions are probably 
always made by the toxicologists, but they have associates 
working for them who do some of the work up. But then, whatever 
decision we make then, we send over to the Office of 
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and their toxicologists 
peer review our decisions. So, they're looked at twice. 



3 
4 

5 



16 SENATOR PETRIS: You have two of them. 



How many of those 30 positions are actually filled? 

MR. WELLS: I was afraid you were going to ask that. 

I think we're probably within about four positions of 
being filled. I could be wrong, but four or five in both 
branches . I know we ' re right now — we have an examination out 
to fill a couple of positions. And we also have been able to 
get a couple more authorized. 

SENATOR PETRIS: After these two different groups of 
toxicologists do the review, to whom do they submit the report, 
their recommendations? Do they come to you? 

MR. WELLS: Yes. 






50 



SENATOR PETRIS: So, you make the final decision on 
whether the permit to sell in California is granted or not? 

MR. WELLS: Well, I do. But our policy is that if 
there's a recommendation to deny by any scientist, unless 
something changes — new data comes in, or something — then it 
gets denied. 

More commonly right now, those are the new chemicals 
coming in. We denied — in the last two years we've denied 200 
and some chemicals and registered 400 and some new chemicals. 

That's the most consistent pattern, is that new stuff 
comes in, doesn't meet the standards, and gets denied. Because 
we haven't gotten through that many of the 950 risk assessments. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have any of the scientists who quit 
under the prior administration come back? 

MR. WELLS: No. As a matter of fact, I believe some 
of them are in Mr. Soo Hoo ' s Department, and some of them are 
over at AWEHA, and some left entirely. But they — they 
actually left for a number of different reasons, dan they seem 
to have found places they're comfortable. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, the reasons I heard were their 
recommendations weren't being adopted. They were being rejected 
by the political arm of the — before your time, I want to make 
that clear -- the political arm was saying, "These are our 
friends out there peddling this stuff, and we're not going to 
deny them the right, so forget it." And off they went. 

That's not happening any more, I gather. 

MR . WELLS : That ' s not happening . There were a few 



4 
S 

6 

7 
X 
9 
l() 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
\9 
20 



22 
23 
24 



25 
26 
27 
28 



51 



3 
4 
5 

7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
2K 



jthat left for that reason. There were — as you might imagine, 
too, there is quite a clash when we first brought all the 

! scientists on board. There were 30 new personalities and 30 

i 

i people then that related to the registration people, who'd been 

i 

doing that work all that time, and I think there were a lot of 
jealousies and clashes at first, so we pretty much got worked 
out. 

We — we accommodated the results of that 
investigation by putting in a fail safe system where something 
cannot be registered over the objection of a scientist. 

SENATOR PETRIS: When was that done? 

MR. WELLS: Right after — in our response to the 
report in 1989; 1990 is when we put it in place. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You had a hand in that? 

MR. WELLS: Yeah, I inherited that job when I was 
working for Rex there. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I seem to recall in your letter, you 
pointed out that immediately after, you took certain steps when 
you came in. 

MR. WELLS: Immediately after the report. 

We — we investigated the allegations in the report. 
And the ones that we found to be correct, we took action on 
immediately. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Let me refer to a Food and Ag 
Department statement made in 1978 about Fosdrin. It says, and 
I'm quoting directly: 

"Fosdrin is one of the most hazardous 



52 



pesticides currently registered. Pest 
management guides now being developed" 
"now" meaning 1978, 

"will recommend that it only be used as a 
last resort chemical only when suitable, 
safer alternates are not available. The 
high dermal toxicity, the use of highly 
concentrated solutions, and the high 
volatility of normal field temperatures 
make the provision of a safe workplace by 
the employer almost impossible while using 
this product. " 
That's the end of the quotation. 

Now, we know that hundreds of farmworkers have been 
poisoned by this substance. Yet this year, Fosdrin is still 
approved for use in the state, and it's use level remains 90 
percent of the level of prior years, all the way back to 1977. 
Now, you have authority to cancel that, don't you? 

19 MR. WELLS: Yes. 

20 SENATOR PETRIS: But you haven't. 

21 MR. WELLS: We're — in the risk assessment, that's 
another product that's in risk assessment right now. We'll be 
completed in '93. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Didn't this 1978 statement result 
from a risk assessment? Do you think it's changed since then? 

MR. WELLS: I don't know — to tell you the truth, 
I'm not familiar with the statement and where it came from. It 



10 

ii 
12 
1.1 

14 

15 

16 
17 
18 



23 
24 
25 

26 
27 
2X 



53 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IX 

19 

20 

21 

"»i 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
2X 






probably came out of the worker safety group after their field 
investigations . 

I wasn't aware of that statement. But it wouldn't 
have resulted from a risk assessment because we didn't do them 
then, to tell you the truth. It would have resulted from 
observation in the field and looking at whatever data we had at 
the time. 

But we are in the process — we just got a 1992 
dermal absorption field exposure study on Fosdrin, and we're 
going to complete that risk assessment in '93. And I don't know 
that any or all of the uses are going to survive that risk 
assessment. 

There are some unique things about Fosdrin that, 

while it is acutely toxic and very difficult to handle, it also 

i 

dissipates very rapidly. So, we don't have very many 

fieldworker incidents. The incidents we tend to have involve 

people in the next field when an application's going on in one 

field, and mixer/loader applicators who are actually mixing the 

material . 

We did make all of that work go through a closed 
system so people wouldn't be pouring the material. That cut 
down the illness level when we did that. We're averaging now 
somewhere around 30 reported investigated illnesses a year, 
either probable, possible, or definitely associated with 
Fosdrin. 

But I can't deny or I wouldn't refute what that 
statement says . Fosdrin is still one of the most highly toxic 



54 



materials in use in the field today. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm wondering, in view of that, how 
much more it takes to cancel it? It just seem to me it's a good 
candidate for dropping the hammer. And it's got nothing to do 
with the manufacturers or the tests. You know, they're trying 
to sell this stuff, and they probably think it's okay. But 
others think it's very toxic, very dangerous. 

MR. WELLS: I think, frankly, what happened was, in 
all the re-prioritization of activities that took place during 
the '80s, I think it was sort of pushed to the back burner. It 
came back up for risk assessment really as much through 950 as 
anything else. 

If I were to go back and be in charge in 1978, I 
think I would have proceeded with completing an evaluation of it 
in 197 8 and taken some action. 

But I think that it kind of got pushed to the back, 
and it's back up to the front burner now. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You didn't have the hammer in the 
law at that time. You probably would have done it anyway. 

MR. WELLS: It's questionable. The burden of proof 
was probably greater then in terms of trying to cancel something 
for cause, but still, a significant adverse effect, especially 
an acute one, it would have been a battle. I don't know what 
the outcome would have been. We did cancel a few materials back 
in those days. We cancelled DBCP, got away with that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have you cancelled any acutely toxic 
substances at all in the last year? 



I 

4 

s 
6 

7 
x 
l > 

10 

II 
12 
13 

14 
IS 
Id 
17 
IS 

iy 

20 
21 

22 
23 



26 
27 



28 



13 

14 
15 
16 

17 

IS 

I 1 ) 

20 

21 
i~> 

23 
24 
2S 
26 
27 
28 



55 



MR. WELLS: The one where — we suspended 
ethylparathion, which is almost, I admit, anticlimactic, because 
the EPA's suspending on a national level all but a few uses. 
But we have suspended that — that material for failure to 
comply with the — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Any others? 

MR. WELLS: No. We did — again, a product by the 
name of Fozolone, which you may remember caused some fieldworker 
illnesses a few years ago. Same — we had the same experience 
with that one. We notified the company we were taking 
cancellation action, and they withdrew it nationally. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're aware of the statutes better 

than anybody, and is it fair for me to assume if you get equally 

damaging assessments in the future of some other substance, that 

[you'll use your power to cancel it out? 

MR. WELLS: Yes. I think — we've taken some pretty 
i 
aggressive action in the last year to try to enforce the 

statutes that are on the book, and I think — I think we're 

going to continue to do that. Risk assessments that result in 

significant risk that isn't mitigated result in cancellation, 

period. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What kind of forceful action have 
[you taken? Can you give me some examples? 

MR. WELLS: Well, I think in — in noticing the 
suspension of all the chemicals that have all the data coming 
in. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Those are 530 something? 



56 



MR. WELLS: Well, we started out with 14 active 
ingredients, and then I think that — after that, we had the 
re-negotiation or the negotiations on 550, and then we came back 
when 550 was passed with 57 active ingredients. And we're 
moving right forward on those. There'll be a number of those 
that won't make the cut; they'll be suspended. And like I said, 
16 of them, they brought the data in. I don't know when we 
evaluate the data whether they will have significant adverse 
5 effects or not. 

10 



SENATOR PETRIS: Do you expect to know sometime 



1 during this year? 

12 MR. WELLS: On all of them? 

13 SENATOR PETRIS: On the ones you mentioned, the 16. 

14 Will you know sometime this year? 

15 MR. WELLS: Well, again, what' 11 happen to those is, 
when that data comes in, we'll look at our priority list, the 
46, and we'll fit them into that priority list. Some of them 
already might be there; I haven't compared. And then we'll move 
forward with the risks assessments as fast as we can, but 

20 there's only so many you can do a year. 

21 We're not just doing risk assessments for 950. We're 

22 doing it for Prop. 65; we're doing it for new active 



23 
24 



ingredients, et cetera. 

So, those that we get to that we get reviewed, we'll 
make decisions on. 
26 SENATOR PETRIS: What kind of actions do the 

manufacturers take when they're alerted to the fact that you're 

28 



57 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IX 

I') 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2S 



going through a risk assessment and they might have a problem? 
Do they file their own reports with a different interpretation? 
Their own arguments, not the reports. You're all working, 
presumably, with the same reports. 

MR. WELLS: Well, they are the same reports. 

But what — sometimes what will happen is, they'll go 
out and they'll submit new data that they hadn't submitted 
before, or they'll conduct new tests. 

A lot of times what happens is, we look at the 
studies themselves and say these studies are inadequate. We 
refused to register a lot of materials in the last two years 
because the studies themselves were inadequate to make a 
determination. And their response then is to go back and do an 
adequate study and resubmit. 

But there are a number of different — sometimes they 
— they dispute the toxicology, and they have the opportunity to 
come in and, you know, make their arguments. But we're rarely 
overturned unless somebody does a new study that shows something 
that we didn't know before. 

SENATOR PETRIS: In the mix, would you call it the 
mixers where you cut down the incidents, are minors allowed to 
jjdo the mixing? 

MR. WELLS: They are except for certain materials. 
Well, the way the regulations read, no one under 18 can mix or 
load a Category 1 material, highly toxic material, or a material 
that requires the use of air supplied breathing apparatus, or a 
material that requires a full-body protective suit. 



4 

5 
6 

7 
X 
^ 

10 

1 1 

12 
13 

14 

15 
16 

17 
18 

iy 

20 

21 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



58 



So, it's basically the Category Is they can't mix and 
load, and some others. But they could mix and load Category 2 
material or some other pesticide. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I thought the regulations had a 16 
year age limit. 

MR. WELLS: Pardon? 

SENATOR PETRIS: I thought the age was 16 rather than 
18. 

MR. WELLS: In — I just looked it up; it was 18. My 
book may be old. I don't know. Sixteen? You got me there. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We were wondering whether they 
should even be allowed at 18, depending on the substance, but 
the minor role is regulated by the degree of danger, I suppose. 
If it's more dangerous, they're not allowed to take part. 

MR. WELLS: that — that's the philosophy behind it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's the actual practice? 

MR. WELLS: Pardon? 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's the actual practice? 

MR. WELLS: About who's mixing and loading? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

MR. WELLS: Well, we better not catch somebody under 
the 18. 

What it — it isn't the person themselves that's in 
violation. It's the employer of that person that's held in 
violation. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's the penalty? 

MR. WELLS: I don't know if we've ever caught 



59 



1 

4 

S 

6 

7 

S 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2X 



anybody, but it — it would be a misdemeanor or — like any 

I other penalty in the Code, unless it was a repeat offense. It 

i 
could be up to $5,000. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's like going through a stop 
'|sign. That's a misdemeanor. 

MR. WELLS: Well, yeah, that's true. Well, we — we 
lihave what they call a felony wobbler for repeat offenses. The 
initial offense, I think we can issue a fine up to $5,000 now. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I'd like you to check that 
regulation further. We had the impression it's 16, and I'd 
rather see it at 18, frankly. I think your better nature 
spilled out the 18. 

MR. WELLS: Well, I also just looked it up, but to 
tell you the truth — we'll check that out. It should be 18. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, on another area, the posting. 
That was my very first bill 25 years ago. It took 20 years to 
get it passed, so I'm interested — to get it signed by the 
Governor, I should say. 

I'm interested in what the current status is on 
posting and the re-entry levels? 

We fought very hard to pull them back to one day 
instead of the seven days or eight days. What is the practice 
today? 

MR. WELLS: Practice today is to post anything with a 
re-entry interval over seven days — to post anything with a 
re-entry — any toxicity Category 1 two days or over on eight 
specific labor intensive crops, and to post grapes and tree 



60 



fruit and citrus -- I believe citrus is in there — if it 
results in a re-entry interval of two days or more after April 
1st. We found that there's a differential on the decay rate of 
4 pesticides in the warmer weather. 

So, if you apply to grapes or tree fruit after April 
1st a toxicity Category 1 material, then you have to post. Or, 
if you apply any time and results in a re-entry interval over 
seven days on tree fruit and citrus, or if you apply a Category 
1 material that results in a two day or more re-entry interval 

10 on eight vegetable crops — or, there's seven vegetable crops 

11 and, I think, flowers, then you have to post. 

12 SENATOR PETRIS: Post when? Do you ever post on the 

13 first day? 

14 MR. WELLS: No. I don't believe there's anything 
that results in — if there's only a 24 hour re-entry interval. 

16 Now, the Federal Farmworker Protection Standards, 



r 



20 
21 



23 
24 
25 

26 

27 
2X 






which are to take effect — I think the labels have to be 
effective in April of '94, will require any Category 1 
application to result in posting. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I don't remember which bill. In one 
of the bills, we were trying very hard to get the earliest 
possible posting date, especially for the more toxic substances, 
and the growers and manufacturers felt seven days is enough. Do 
it on the 7th day. That doesn't seem right. That's why — 

MR. WELLS: That's why we — we implemented the 
regulations — after your SB 269 a few years ago, we implemented 
regulations to go down to two days for those labor intensive 



61 



crops. 

There's a little different approach, but it 
j accomplished pretty much the same thing. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, you remember, we made a 
distinction between labor intensive crops and the others. Labor 
intensive were the most serious because a lot of people are 
around, and we wanted to take action as soon as possible. 

Why don't we just post all labor intensive crops on 
the first day? 

MR. WELLS: Well, the theory, I think, is that if the 
chemical is toxic, a highly toxic material, the re-entry 
intervals are almost always at least 48 hours. So, in a way, 
you're accomplishing that. 

If it's a — it isn't like you wait a day and then 
post. You have to post at or before the time the application is 
completed. The sign has to go up. 

The highly toxic materials that are likely to cause 
the real illness problems, where you really want people to be 
aware of the fact there's a problem, almost always have re-entry 
intervals of at least two days. So, that's why — two days or 
more. It isn't over two days. 

And the seven-day posting is over seven days . For 
the two-day posting, it's two days or more. So, it's 48 hours, 
basically, or more. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The proper posting time, is it just 
before or at the time of the application? 

MR. WELLS: Prior to completion. 



62 



SENATOR PETRIS: Now, are you always required to 
follow the feds EPA nationally, that makes a policy, do you have 
to follow it? Do they pre-empt us, or can we do better if we 
4 want? 

MR. WELLS: No, we can do — we can't do less. We 
can do more. 

SENATOR PETRIS: With respect to posting, I notice 
that they recently removed the skull-and-crossbones from the 



9 



signs. Is there any danger that might happen here? 



10 MR. WELLS: Federal — that's one of the things we 

have to work out with U.S. EPA, because they — their sign does 
not have a skull-and-crossbones on it. That was a hotly 

13 contested issue at the national level. 

14 We would — if we want to keep our skull-and-cross- 
bones, basically, we have to negotiate a deal with EPA to make 

16 sure that they would consider it equivalent to. 

17 The only way that I could see — 

18 SENATOR PETRIS: Why is that? 



\9 



MR. WELLS: They could pre-empt us if they said 



theirs was better. If they said that they felt theirs was more 
protective and communicated the message better, and they said 
ours wasn't as good, then we could have a pre-emption problem. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, they apparently believe that 
24 now, or they'd keep the skull-and-crossbones. 

My understanding is that they did it because somebody 
said it would frighten passers-by. They aren't farmworkers, and 
they're not neighbors, they're just driving by and they see this 

2S 



63 



I 

2 



K» 
17 
IX 
l*> 
20 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



skull-and-crossbones, and it scares them. 

That ' s a pretty weak reed on which to lean to make 
national policy, it seems to me. And if they have authority to 
say to you, "We determine that this is better than yours," you 
don't have any leeway to assert your own policy? 

MR. WELLS: We have a pretty good relationship with 
EPA, and we also tend to, when we have those kinds of problems, 
we tend to submit data. So, we would try to find data in 

9 lj support of our position on that. 

ij 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are you negotiating with them now on 
that? 

MR. WELLS: We're not yet. We have a number of 
things . 

The EPA standards, basically, in some cases are still 



3 

4 

5 | 

(> 

7 
S 



15 not as good as ours, and in some cases they may be tighter. And 



in some cases, it's just a matter of them being different. 

And we are trying to negotiate some equivalency, so 
we can say, "We think this is equivalent to or better than what 
you ' ve got , and we want your reading on it . " 

And I know we have sent a number of questions back 

21 there, and we have a bunch more to send back there. 

■n 

SENATOR PETRIS: But historically, ours has been 

tougher than theirs . 

MR. WELLS: Oh, yeah. 

SENATOR PETRIS: By a lot. 

MR. WELLS: Oh, yeah. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do they ever come out here for 



64 



I 

4 
S 

7 
8 
9 

10 

1 1 

12 
13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



meetings? 



meetings? 



MR. WELLS: Pardon? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do they ever come out here for 

MR. WELLS: Yeah, and we meet regularly with 



Region 9. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Regional? 

MR. WELLS: Yeah, the regional people. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Maybe you ought to hang a skull-and- 
crossbones outside the door. When they come in and they see 
that, maybe they'll take notice, huh? 

MR. WELLS: There was an argument, and I was part of 
the original Federal Farmworker Negotiating Team when it was a 
negotiating team, and the argument that we kept hearing was that 
if people see a skull-and-crossbones on food crops, they won't 
want to eat food. But we didn't really subscribe to that 
argument . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, on the minors again, as I 
understand it, the regulation provides that a minor may not mix, 
but it doesn't prohibit the minor from applying the pesticide. 

Shouldn't that ban extend to application as well, as 
far as exposure of that minor is concerned? 

MR . WELLS : That ' s something we probably ought to 
consider. 

The rationale behind that, as I recall, was that the 
application is of the dilute material in most cases, and the 
dilute material's not as hazardous, obviously, as the 



I I 



65 



3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 

10 
I I 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 

23 
24 
2.5 
26 
27 
28 



concentrate. 

That's something we could re-visit. To tell you the 
truth, it hasn't come up in a long time. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'd like very much for you to re- 
visit that. That seems to me to be some kind of a gap there 
that ought to be closed. 

MR. WELLS: Yeah. 

The illness reports, the illness investigations don't 
|j indicate that we have a lot of minors out there getting in 
trouble, but then, we may just be missing them. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, on the overall duty to enforce 
the pesticide laws, that's done by the counties? 

MR. WELLS: In association with us, yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I was looking over a chart that 
shows how this has been going, and I was absolutely startled — 
and we'll give you a copy of it, and the Members — to see that 
the ones that have imposed the most fines for violations of the 
pesticide laws are the urban areas: Los Angeles and San Diego. 
You can see the chart: L.A. has 118 during 1990 and '91; San 
Diego, 89; Kern County, one of the biggest agricultural counties 
in the country, has only one. Tulare has six, Kings has one. 
And Fresno, which is known around the world for its agricultural 
activity, has 23, a lot more than the others. Madera has 8. 

That seems to me to be very strange. Are you aware 
of that? Are you familiar with those numbers? 

MR. WELLS: Apparently we produced — no, these came 
off our Report #5. 



4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 1 
12 
13 
14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



66 



I've never seen this graphic display, but I wouldn't 
-- this is for the year 1989. I wouldn't dispute it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you have a report for any later 
year, '90 or '91? 

MR. WELLS: You know, all I have is the — yeah, we 
have a Report #5, which is where this came from, for 1990, and 
1991, I think, is complete. But I don't have it with me. 

I don't know what those numbers look like. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The ones I read you were 1990-91, 
actually, not "89. 

MR. WELLS: Oh, okay. 

SENATOR PETRIS: There's another one on 1990-91, 
showing — it groups them together. For L.A., it shows 118, and 
for the eight Valley counties put together, where all the 
agriculture is, it's only 59. 

That suggests to me that the commissioners are not 
too vigorous in their enforcement if the city boys are doing — 
I'm not saying those farms are in the City of L.A., but they're 
in the County — but the urban people seem to be much more 
vigorous in enforcing. 

I'd like to review that as well and see how you 
interpret it, and what we can do to beef up the enforcement. 

MR. WELLS: I'd like to say, we — we have launched 
an initiative just this year to develop more uniform standards 
for county enforcement activities. We expect to have a uniform 
guidance completed, with the help of the counties, by spring, I 
think, by April. And then, to use that uniform guideline as a 



67 



standard. 

We'd almost have to look at what these violations 
result from to know exactly how this — what this means . But 
we'll certainly look into it. 

We do need — we need uniform enforcement. It's 
always been a problem when you have 58 counties, in getting 
uniform — 

SENATOR PETRIS: I understand, but it is supposed to 
be enforcing a statewide law. 

MR. WELLS: That's right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And we don't like the idea, after 
working very hard to establish this state standards, to have it 
fractured into 58 counties, and each of them go their own way. 
They ought to be interpreting the same law. And I would imagine 
pretty much — we know it varies no matter what. 

It's like going to court. You get one judge in one 
county, and he'll impose a fine of so much for speeding. And 
you go to another judge in the same courthouse, and you get a 
different result. I understand that. So, there's bound to be 
some variation. 

But this seems to me to be far greater than it should 
be. You know, you can allow a certain amount. 

So, if you could check it out and see what the bases 
are, we might be able to improve our enforcement. 

One of my questions was, how can we improve that 
enforcement? You're going to check it out and — 

MR. WELLS: Yeah. I think we've got to start — it's 



68 



really up to us to prescribe the standards and to provide the 
training, and then the oversight of the counties to make sure 
that that happens. And we've recognized this as a continuing 
problem, and we're focusing on it. So hopefully, by the end of 
this year, you'll see some different results. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're familiar with the journal 
called The Packer ? 

MR. WELLS: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And the article, there was an 
article by one of the staff, Western Editor. 

Is that pretty accurate? Is there any problem with 
his discussion of the — 

MR. WELLS: I haven't looked at this in a while. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, he contends there 've been a 
lot of violations. 

MR. WELLS: Oh, oh, oh, yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And very few, if any, suspensions or 
revocations, including pilots. 

MR. WELLS: Yeah, and he's right. 

You know, that's kind of the — that's kind of the 
damned if you do, damned if you don't, aspect of this whole 
thing, is that if you haven't been taking any license actions 
for nine years, and you suddenly start taking actions, you're 
going to draw some — some curiosity. 

We weighed that — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Draw some what? 

MR. WELLS: — and said this is what we need to do, 



12 
13 

14 

15 

16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



69 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

l l > 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



lis to go out and start taking — we have a number of these civil 

i 

'penalties, as you see on this sheet. I think there were 709 

civil penalties in agriculture last year, and there were 

$283,000 worth of fines. 

And when we go back and look at those civil penalties 

issued by the counties, and we see the same people coming up 
il 
over and over again, then we — we know that they consider it 

ijthe cost of doing business. 

So, we've launched an enforcement initiative to go 
after those licensees and take their license way from them. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are you doing that now? 

MR. WELLS: Yeah, that's what this refers to. This 
referred to the first case that we took, and, you know, they're 
looking backwards and saying, "Why haven't you done more?" 
We're looking forward and saying, "You're going to see more." 

We've got another one — two more since this happened 
have been issued, or the accusation against the license have 
been issued. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'd like to keep posted on that from 
time to time, directly or through Felice, and see. It seems to 
me if you continue on that track, you're going to see those 
things drop — 

MR. WELLS: We should. 

SENATOR PETRIS: — the number of incidents drop. 
!And that's what we want to do. 

Okay, I have one final area. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. 
Unfortunately, it's another bill of mine, SB 926 last year, 



70 



relating to child care centers and schools. 

Now, during that processing of that legislation, some 
people told us, "Well, we don't know what these ingredients are 
that you're trying to ban." 

The original bill would have banned the use of 
certain pesticides in the school house and the grounds, you 
know, the landscaping, and especially the child day care 
centers . 

But then, somewhere along the line, somebody 
suggested, "Well, we can identify them," and they prevailed on 
us to back off of the harsh provisions that said you just ban 
them, period. You can't sell them to the schools to study in a 
report in which the EPA would be required to give us a list of 
the ingredients being used on those commonly known products so 
that we would know what they are, and provide them to the school 
districts through the Superintendent of Public Instruction as an 
informational item so they can make their own judgments on 
whether they want to use these or not. 

But I haven't seen the list. I don't think they're 
doing it yet. Well, actually, the bill was defeated, so that's 
why they're not doing it. Pretty good reason. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: But nevertheless, I understand 
you're working on developing a list; is that correct? Or you 
have a list relating to the stuff used in the schools and the 
day care centers? 

MR. WELLS: Yeah, we — actually, the Child Advocacy 



\ 

4 

5 

b 
7 
§ 

10 

1 1 
12 
13 

14 
15 

lh 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



24 
25 
26 

27 
2X 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
X 
9 
10 
II 

'2 
1.1 

14 

15 

16 

17 



71 

Group — I can't remember the name of it -- Institute, she 
apparently has a list that takes care of two or three of the 
major school districts in the state, and she was going to send 
that over to us: here's the chemical that they use. And, you 
know, then we'll have a better handle on what they're actually 
using in schools. 

To tell you the truth, the incident that occurred 
almost right after your bill was defeated pointed out to us that 
there's a bigger problem, really, than we thought in schools, 
because — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, the timing was terrible. The 
Governor vetoed the bill, and the next day they closed down a 
school in San Francisco, sent 300 kids home, because of some 
cleaning agent they used in the school. 

MR. WELLS: Well the problem there was that they 
didn't even know they were doing pest control. And that — that 
was the thing that caught our attention, is that we need a 



18 ! broader education program for the schools than even we were 



19 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

2.S 

lj 

26 

27 
28 



considering with the list. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can we start with a list and go from 
there up? I'd like to work with you. Perhaps this year we can 
put something in with the support of the Department and educate 
the schools. 

That was ironic. If that had happened the day 
before, I don't think the Governor would have vetoed the bill. 

Oddly enough, that substance wasn't in the bill. 

MR. WELLS: No. 



72 



SENATOR PETRIS: It was in a bill previously. It's 
ammonium something or other, microbials. 

MR. WELLS: And the school didn't even realize that 
what that person was doing up there was applying a pesticide. 
And I'm not sure that person did, either, but that's another 
story. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, the name of the company had 
some fancy environmental thing. 
9 MR. WELLS: Health Air. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Health Air. 

1 MR. WELLS: A little irony there. 
SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, well, maybe we ought to label 

— we regulate what goes on labels; maybe we ought to regulate 
what goes on titles of people working in a dangerous area. 

MR. WELLS: The operator was unlicensed in that case. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That made it worse. 

Well, I'd like to work with you on that in the 
future, this year I mean, not far off in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Wells. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other? Senator Ayala. 
22 SENATOR AYALA: I have a very short question. I 

think Senator Petris covered the area pretty well. 

Is your Department responsible for the aerial 
spraying of malathion for the medfly eradication? 

MR. WELLS: No, Senator, we're not responsible. Our 
part of that is merely to police the aerial spraying. We're 



i: 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 
21 



24 
25 
26 

27 



2S 



73 



3 

4 

6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
2X 



responsible for the registration of materials, and we're 
responsible to make sure that it's done according to law, and we 
do monitoring. 

SENATOR AYALA: But you're not involved in 
authorizing malathion or any other substance to be used for the 
spraying? You're not responsible for that? 

MR. WELLS: Yeah, we authorize — it's up to us to 
issue the — they're using a special local need. 

SENATOR AYALA: Some 12-13 years ago, there was an 
infestation in the San Jose area. At that time I was told we 
had two methods of — we're not eradicating. We're just 
controlling it, I think, the medfly infestation. 

What we had was malathion and the release of sterile 
medf lys . 

MR. WELLS: Right. 

SENATOR AYALA: Now, that was 12 years ago. 

What do you have to combat that problem today? 

MR. WELLS: Malathion and sterile medf lys. 

Unfortunately, the science on that hasn't moved very 
fast. There aren't any biocontrol agents that they know of 
right now that — 

SENATOR AYALA: In 12-13 years, we haven't made any 
progress? 

We're not really doing it, you know, and we're just, 
in my opinion, we're just controlling the spread of infestation. 
I don't think we've eradicated the medfly, and we probably never 
will, in my opinion, from what I've heard. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 
8 

10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



74 



Now, can you tell me that malathion is no health risk 
now or in the future, spraying it on the residential areas? 

MR. WELLS: Can I go back to the first question 
first, and then I want to clarify something there, and then 
we'll go on to the second one. 

There has really been progress, and it's been recent 
progress. It wasn't 12 years ago, but recently, in the 
Department of Food and Agriculture's control of the medfly. And 
that came largely through this new trap that they have that 
gives them better trapping capability, and they know more about 
the distribution of the pest. And I think that's one of the 
reasons why they haven't had to go to aerial spraying; that, and 
the fact that they've increased the capacity to produce sterile 
flies . 

So, they've had applications — or, they've had an 
infestation recently that, in the old days they would have 
sprayed already, but they're not, because they're using the 
ground materials, and they're using all the technology's that's 
available to them. And they also have some expanded research 
going on. 

So, I think there are good signs, but unfortunately, 
and it's an entomological argument, I guess, and not really one 
that the Department of Pesticide Regulation gets into, but they 
believe they are still in an eradication mode. And I know 
there's a lot of arguments about that. 

The countries that have gone to a control mode have 
to use a lot of pesticides to control it, and that's what 



75 



\ 

4 
5 
6 
7 
X 
«) 
10 

II 

12 
13 

14 
15 
16 

17 

IK 

I') 

20 

21 
->-> 

23 
24 
25 

26 
27 
2X 



they're trying to get away from doing. 

As far as the health aspects, malathion is probably 
the most widely studied — is the most widely studied chemical, 
especially since this last health assessment by the Malathion 
Public Health Advisory Committee, and the advisory committee, 
the Department of Health Services, and the Office of 
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment all came out with there's 
no significant risk to the general population. 

That really — you know, that's all the expertise in 
the state right now saying that there isn't, and that you'd be 
at more of a risk if you didn't control it. 

SENATOR AYALA: I recall that during that discussion 
with the Director of Food and Ag, we were told that malathion 
had no problems, that New Orleans had been sprayed for the last 
25 years at that time. There was no medical problems that you 
could put at the foot of the spraying of malathion. They 
sprayed it on the streets, on the channels, on the lakes, and 
anywhere the water was every year for the last at that time 30 
years . 

Well, no it was no risk to human life, but apparently 
there was no problem with the mosquito, either, because they 
keep spraying it every year. They weren't getting anyplace with 
it. 

So my point is that in 12 years, we've made no 
substantial progress, knowing that it's going to come back. Is 
it because we don't have the funds to research the problem, or 
what happens to be the reason for not getting a little more 



76 



scientifically involved with this problem? It's going to come 

back. 

MR. WELLS: I think there has in the past been a lack 

of funds. I think, though, the fact that it's come back so many 

times recently has focused more funding activity on it. 
(> I think they're working on a $750,000 program now. 

It's not my program, so I might have the numbers wrong. 

But that, and the fact that the technology's advanced 

-- I don't know if you've noticed, but just recently they've 
10 done -- they managed to do the DNA typing of the white fly to 

determine that the white fly in the Imperial County is a 

different species of white fly than the one they thought it was. 
' 3 They can use that same technology on the medfly; in 

14 fact, they are. 
' 5 One of the difficult problems with controlling or 

finding a biological control for a pest that is widespread, like 
17 the medfly, is, you can't find out where it originated. You 

need to find out specifically what strain it is, and where it 
iy originated, and then go back to that location and try to find 
-° out what controls — 

21 SENATOR AYALA: We have people coming into this state 

~- from other states and from foreign countries . 

MR. WELLS: But, see, it's all over the world now. 
24 What they need to do, and the same with the sweet 

potato -- or, so-called sweet potato white fly is to go back to 



26 

27 
28 



the location where that particular pest is being controlled 
naturally, and that's where we had the big success with the ash 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 

X 

l > 

10 

II 

12 
13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
IS 
l«J 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 



[I 



77 



white fly, because we were lucky enough to be able to go back to 
those areas in Europe where it originated where it was under 
biological control, and brought the biological controls back 
with us. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is your Department not involved with 
that activity at all? 

MR. WELLS: No, we're not at this point. Since the 
separation, basically, we're not involved in the research. 
We're only involved in whether or not we issue the malathion 
registrations. And at this point, all the health information 
indicates that there's no reason not to. 

SENATOR AYALA: Can I have a copy of that 
information, medical and scientific information telling us that 
there ' s no health risk involved with the spraying of malathion 
over residential areas. 

MR. WELLS: To the general population, I believe. 
This is a report that came out of the Office of Environmental 
Health Hazard Assessment just recently. 

SENATOR AYALA: Can you give me something on that? 
I'd like to — 

MR. WELLS: We can get that to you, yeah. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any further questions? 

Is there anyone here in support or opposition? Okay, 
please come forward. State your name and your point of view. 

DR. WINTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. 

I'm Dr. Carl Winter, and I am food toxicologist and 



25 
26 
27 
2S 



78 



Director of the FoodSafe Program at the University of California 
at Davis. 

I'm pleased to be here today to express my support 
for the confirmation of Jim Wells as Director of the Department 
of Pesticide Regulation. 
6 I've known Mr. Wells professionally since 1981, when 

he served briefly as the Program Supervisor of the California 
Department of Food and Agriculture's Worker Health and Safety 
Branch. As an employee of the Branch at the time, I was 
impressed with Mr. Wells's leadership skills, communication 
abilities, and his thorough knowledge of pesticide use practices 
and worker safety issues. I was not at all surprised to learn 
'3 of his subsequent promotion to Chief of the Pesticide Use 
14 Enforcement Branch, or of his continued ascent through positions 
|S of increased responsibility, culminating in today's hearing. 

16 



17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



I left CDFA to pursue graduate studies and was hired 
by the University of California as a toxicologist upon 
completion of my graduate work in 1987. My program at the 
University specializes in the issue of pesticide residues in 
foods and has kept me in continuous contact with Mr. Wells and 
his staff for the past five years. I've appeared with Mr. Wells 
on a variety of symposia and panels concerning food safety and 
pesticide registration activities, and I can personally attest 
to his effectiveness in describing the role and activities of 
the Department of Pesticide Regulation to a very wide variety of 
audiences . 

Mr. Wells has demonstrated the ability to understand 



3 

4 
S 

6 j 

7 



15 
16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
2X 



'I 



79 



and to value the variety of opinions that surface with respect 
to pesticide issues, and to communicate appropriate responses in 
an honest, open, and constructive manner. 

Perhaps the greatest endorsement I can offer 
concerning Mr. Wells's leadership and effectiveness in directing 
the activities of the Department of Pesticide Regulation comes 
from the reputation of the program outside of California. The 
pesticide regulatory program in California is truly the envy of 
the other 49 states, and Jim Wells deserves much of the credit 
for its success. 

While the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and 
u lithe Food and Drug Administration are occasionally threatened by 
13 the existence of the California program, Mr. Wells has worked 
jlhard to develop programs that complement, rather than compete 
with, existing federal programs. As an example, California's 
residue testing program contains unique elements, such as 
priority pesticide, produce destined for processing, and 
pre-harvest monitoring surveys that provide valuable data for 
subsequent assessments of dietary risks that cannot be obtained 
from existing federal programs . 

California remains as the nation's trend-setter and 
leader in pesticide regulation, and Jim Wells has demonstrated 
the ability to effectively lead the program through his 
experience and his innovative abilities. 

I support his confirmation as Director of the 
Department of Pesticide Regulation without reservation. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Question. 



80 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, Senator Petris . 
SENATOR PETRIS: Can I have your name again? 
DR. WINTER: Yes, I'm Carl Winter. 



8 



10 

I I 






SENATOR PETRIS: You're a professor at U.C. Davis? 
DR. WINTER: Yes, at U.C. Davis. 



SENATOR PETRIS: I'm not going to ask you your age, 
but I don't think you'd be permitted to do the mixing of the 



ingredients . 



[Laughter. ] 



DR. WINTER: I take that as a compliment. Thank you, 
Senator. 



12 SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

13 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Anyone else in support or 

14 opposition? 

Do I hear a motion? 

16 SENATOR CRAVEN: Move it. 

17 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Craven moves confirmation 

18 

be recommended to the Floor. 

iy Secretary will call the roll. 

20 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

21 SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

22 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

23 SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 



25 SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

26 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

28 



81 



(> 

7 
X 
9 
10 
I I 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 



SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Robert i. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is five to zero; 



confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 



1 



is 

» 

20 | 
21 

23 

24 

26 

27 
2« 



MR. WELLS: Thank you. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
4:50 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



4 

5 

t> 

7 

S 

10 

II 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 



IS 
19 
20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



82 

CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

*, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 



,is_/f 



this / / day of January, 1993. 



P^VELYN^J. MfZAK 3 
17 Shorthand Reporter 



BEFORE THE SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

CONFIRMATION HEARING 
JIM WELLS, DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE 

REGULATION 



Testimony of 
Doug Hemly 



Greene & Hemly 
January 13, 1993 



84 



BEFORE THE SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
CONFIRMATION HEARING 

Good afternoon. My name is Doug Hemly. I am a fifth generation farmer, 
growing and shipping pears and apples from our farming operation on the 
Sacramento Delta. For the past 9 years, I have been a member of the Board of 
Directors of California Pear Growers and am immediate past Chairman of the 
Board of the California Grape and Tree Fruit League. I am currently Vice-Chair 
of both the Pear Advisory Board and of the Pear Pest Management Research 
Fund. I thank you for the opportunity this afternoon to speak in support of the 
confirmation of Jim Wells as Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation. 

Before I begin my presentation, I think it may be helpful to give you a bit of my 
background in order to put in perspective my support of Mr. Wells. Back in the 
late Sixties and early Seventies, a small group of Delta pear growers, including 
my father and farm advisor Dick Bethel, spearheaded creation of an integrated 
pest management program for the California pear industry — the first 
formalized, published manual of its kind. 

My family has practiced IPM since that time, using the services of independent 
pest control advisors. For the past three years, we have farmed orchards 
certified as organic by California Certified Organic Farmers. I understand from 
the ground up, so to speak, the trials and benefits of IPM, and am all too familiar 
with the impediments to its more widespread adoption. 



85 



Against this backdrop, 1 wish to express my support, and the support of the 
organizations with which I am involved, for Mr. Wells confirmation. 

While disagreements over management of agricultural chemicals have 
historically been among the most devisive in our state, Jim Wells has worked to 
bridge communication gaps between growers and environmental interests. 
Through creation of the Pesticide Registration Advisory Committee, Mr. Wells 
launched a comprehensive, unprecedented review of state impediments to 
adoption of safer pest management techniques. 

A nationally recognized pest management policy expert, Mr. Wells last year was 
called on to testify before a Congressional Committee investigating difficulties 
faced by minor crop agriculture. In addition, he was an active participant in last 
summer's EPA/USDA forum on Integrated Pest Management. 

I find I can't really address this appointment without expressing a certain level 
of disappointment about the role government typically has played in pesticide 
regulation. Typically government has just said, "No you can't do that." Jim 
Wells, by contrast, has said "How about if we try this?" When the pear industry 
sought to expedite the registration of a biological control of our major pest, 
codling moth, Wells stepped in last season to make sure this environmentally 
friendly program was available to growers. Wells also facilitated the availability 
of a new material which has greatly reduced the volume of miticides pear 
growers had to use, in an action that was both environmentally and 
economically sound. 



86 



In Jim Wells, DPR has an individual that understands how to balance competing 
interests. He understands that polarization only results in regulatory gridlock. 
He understands that we need to work together to move California agriculture 
further along the path to information based pest management systems. 

The Senate Rules Committee has before it the right person to lead the 
Department of Pesticide Regulation. I urge your vote in support of his 
confirmation and welcome any questions you may have. 



214-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.00 per copy 
plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

11 00 J Street, Room B- 15 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 214-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




L,jC : -IMENTS DEPT. 

FEB 81W" 



r iti^ f rvA»«»«'>-' , -^ i 'f . 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20,1993 
2:20 P.M. 



215-R 



2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 

I 

» J 

12 

i 

13 | 
14 
15 
16 

18 
19 
20 

21 

i 

22 j 

23 

jj 

24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1993 
2:20 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR DAVID ROBERT I , Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AY ALA 

SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRI S 

MEMBERS ABSENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

JOSEPH A. DUFFEL, Member 

California Transportation Commission 

PHILIP E. DEL CAMPO, Member 
Board of Governors 
California Community Colleges 

ALICE S. PETROSSIAN, Member 
Board of Governors 
California Community Colleges 



. 



Ill 

INDEX 

1 

2 Page 

Proceeding 1 

Governor's Appointees; 



4 



JOSEPH A. DUFFEL, Member 



5 California Transportation Commission 1 

Background and Experience 1 

i 

7 Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Commission's Involvement in Rail 

Decisions in San Fernando Valley 1 

Parameters 1 

10 

Amount of Funds Allocated to Projects ... 2 
11 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

12 J 

Meaning of "Balanced Transportation System" . . 2 

Motion to Confirm 3 

14 

Committee Action 3 

15 

PHILIP E. DEL CAMPO, Member 

Board of Governors 

California Community Colleges 4 



16 

17 j 
18 
19 
20 
21 | 



Background and Experience 4 

Questions by SENATOR ROBERTI re: 

Need to Revisit Master Plan 4 

Areas to De-emphasize 5 



Board ' s Approach to Bringing New Immigrants 

into Community Colleges 5 

23 Questions by SENATOR PETRI S re: 



24 

i 

25 : ' 
26 

27 j 

28 

I 1 

I 



Work as Consultant 7 

How to Get More Affirmative Action 7 

Work with High Schools 7 



I! 

INDEX (Continued^ 
1 

Raising of Fees 8 

2 

Impact on Lower Income Students 8 

3 

Discussion of Other Revenue Sources .... 9 

4 

Tax Option 9 

Need for Board to Make Tax Recommendation 

6 Public 10 

7 Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

8 Criteria Used to Determine Student 
Acceptability 11 

9 

Need for Policy 12 

10 

Motion to Confirm 12 

11 

Committee Action 13 

12 

|| ALICE S. PETROSSIAN, Member 
13 !| Board of Governors 

California Community Colleges 13 

14 

Background and Experience 13 

15 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

16 i! 



17 



Need to Revisit Master Plan 14 



Cost Comparison for Taxpayers of 
18 Higher Education Systems 15 



19 

20 



Agenda for March Board Meeting 16 

Setting Priorities 16 

21 Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

22 Need to Do Better 16 

'i 

23 Need for Flexible Policy 17 

24 Motion to Confirm 17 

Committee Action 17 

Termination of Proceedings 17 

~ 7 [Certificate of Reporter 18 

28 | 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : We have three Governor ■ s 
appointees this afternoon. We'll start with Joseph A. Duffel, 
Member of the California Transportation Commission. 

Mr. Duffel, we'll ask you what we ask all the 
Governor's appointees, and that is what you feel your 
: qualifications are for this position, which I think you've had 

for a while? 

Ii 

MR. DUFFEL: I'm a businessman. I've served two 
terms already. 

I think that I ' m beginning to learn enough about 
; transportation to make a real contribution to the Commission. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are there any questions of 
Mr. Duffel? 

Getting parochial in my district in the San Fernando 
; Valley is a battle between those who want a metro-rail and a 
monorail. LACTC, really, is the relevant agency, but to what 
extent has the CTC been involved, and has it made any 
recommendations in this area? 

MR. DUFFEL: We have not made any recommendations as 
, it relates to the type of rail service that would be in the San 

n 

Fernando Valley, no. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What parameters do you operate 



under? Los Angeles would have to come up with a satisfactory 

25 H 

i plan — 

26 r 

MR. DUFFEL: That's right. 

I 

28 

i! 



1 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — at which time you would — 

MR. DUFFEL: They would come to us — 

3 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — dispose of the funds that are 

4 allocated for this area? 

5 MR. DUFFEL: They would come to us for the funding, 

i 

6 and we would authorize the funding if those funds were 

7 available. And if — period. 

8 I 

8 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Does each project have a maximum 

9 amount of funds that you would dedicate? 

10 MR. DUFFEL: There are all kinds of different sources 

11 of funds for something like rail. I would imagine that most of 

12 the of the funding for that type rail would be federal funding, 

13 and it would be — it would come through UMPTA. 

14 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other questions of Mr. Duffel? 

ii 
Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Ayala. 



16 

17 



18 SENATOR AYALA: Just one question. 

19 The issue that came out in April of 1990 entitled 
"California's Transportation Future" refers to a balanced 

21 transportation system. 

22 What does that mean? 

23 MR. DUFFEL: Well, I think that that was the 

24 intention of the blueprint legislation that was the forerunner 
of the initiatives — 108, 111 — authorizing legislation which 
was Senate Bill 300. And it has to do with more than one form 

27 ' 

;of transportation. The multi-modal approach to movement of 



28 



1 people and goods rather than just freeways. 

2 SENATOR AYALA: Rail and automobile? 

3 MR. DUFFEL: Rail, and access to ports. All the 

i, 

4 various impacts on transportation that must be considered: air 

5 quality, funding sources, et cetera. 

6 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

7 SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend the confirmation. 
i 

8 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves confirmation 

be recommended to the Floor . 

Is there any opposition in the audience? 
Secretary will call the roll. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 



10 

11 

12 



14 



27 
28 



13 SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 



15 SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

16 SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

.7 

17 SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

18 || SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

19 Senator Robert i. 

20 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

21 SECRETARY WEBB: Robert i Aye. 

22 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 

23 confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

24 Congratulations . 

25 MR. DUFFEL: Thank you, sir. 

26 i 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next appointment is Philip E. 
Del Campo, a Member of the Board of Governors, California 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Community Colleges . 

Mr. Del Campo, we will ask you also what we ask all 

the Governor's appointees, and that is what your qualifications 
j 
are to assume this position? 

MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

I would state that I have over 35 years of experience 
in all forms of education, not necessarily in ranking order, but 
|| starting as an elementary education teacher, and working at all 
the levels in between, and 20 years of administrative 
experience. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

Are there any questions? 

Do you feel that the Master Plan as it pertains to 
community colleges has to be revisited? 

MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: How would you revisit it? 

MR. DUFFEL: Well, we would look at — one of the 
i areas would be funding. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: In five seconds or less. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No, no. I'm teasing you. 

I'm serious; how would you revisit it? 

MR. DEL CAMPO: Well, I would, with all due modesty, 
Senator, because you have visited the centers that I was 
President in San Diego, I would run it on that basis. 

No, I'm teasing. 

ii 

We would look at finance. We would look the funding 



11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



packages, vocational education, and also bringing in how to get 
the best for the students, the best bang for the buck, and also 
working with the Governor and the legislation in bringing about 
proactive programs . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: If there was any one area that 
currently comes under the purview of community colleges where 

7 you would think maybe it could be de-emphasized — 

8 ji MR. DEL CAMPO: De-emphasized? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: De-emphasized — tough question. 
10 MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What would you do? 

This isn't an invitation for you to sacrifice 
somebody, but everything always needs to be streamlined a little 
bit. 

MR. DEL CAMPO: Well, we are taking a close look at 
the academics, and we're emphasizing, of course, the vocational. 

I'm not quite sure I would know just where to make 
those particular cuts. I would have to look at it very closely. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is the Board looking on what we 
can do to have a far more affirmative program in bringing new 
immigrants into community college through the teaching of skills 

I mean, I look to the community college as a major 
teacher, accommodator, for a whole host of people, a skills 
giver . 

MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: And I'm an advocate, but I want to 
know — 



1 MR. DEL CAMPO: I know you are. 

2 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — what you have on the line right 
now to take care of what is an enormous problem, could be an 

4 enormous opportunity, with new people if we can educate them? 

5 MR. DEL CAMPO: We're taking a very, very hard look 
at the affirmative action, where the hires are. We're also 

i! 

7 taking a look at where the immigrants are, and how to deal with 

8 these particular problems. 

The funding, as you well know, is a huge problem, 

10 ,because we have huge numbers, and we don't know exactly where 

11 !| those numbers are. 

lL But I would base the training on English as a Second 

13 Language, because one of the primary responses that we have 

14 gotten from the immigrants is the idea — and this is borne out 

15 by the Garza Study in Texas — is the learning of the language. 

16 And then from there, building a career ladder where they can go 

17 from the learning of the language, through the ladders, to 

18 either vocational or a university. In other words, the old 

19 American message. 

20 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other questions of Mr. Del 

21 Campo? Senator Petris, then Senator Ayala. 

22 I SENATOR PETRIS: I see you have a long history in the 



23 



education community, especially in San Diego. 



24 j MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

25 I 

SENATOR PETRIS: Community College President and so 

26 forth. 

27 ; , MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

28 I 



1 SENATOR PETRIS: And now you're a consultant. What 

does that mean? You work for them on specific projects or what? 

3 MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. I serve, among other 

4 groups, I work for POST as a tutor in their Command College. 

5 This is one of the things. Also as an assessor in bringing in 

6 the applicants. And I'm also doing consulting work at San Diego 
Community College, City College, and particularly bringing in 

8 the — the minorities, if you will, into the college: how do 

9 you get more affirmative action going into the college and 

10 students. 

'i 

11 SENATOR PETRIS: How do you do that? 

12 MR. DEL CAMPO: Well, one thing you learn is the 

13 I neighborhood and how to meet with the various groups and try to 

14 i bring in — offer different situations; try to make the programs 
|i 

15 tailor-made for the people that you're working with. If you 

I 

16 want them, you can go out and get them. And that's what we're 

17 doing. 
SENATOR PETRIS: Do you work with the local high 



18 



19 ''schools on that? 



20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. I worked with the high 
schools. I spent many years with the Unified School District. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Last year we had a terrible tussle 
on the money. The Governor at one point wanted us to raise the 
Jcommunity college fees to $20 a unit from — it was $6, I guess, 
last year. 

MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And we raised it to $10. Now he 



1 wants to authorize the college to go up to $30 a unit. 

2 MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

3 SENATOR PETRIS: Do you support that? 

4 MR. DEL CAMPO: I'm hedging because at this 
particular point, we are doing a very involved study with this 

6 through the community colleges. 

7 I know it will cause great problems, and I — do I 

8 support it? I'm afraid I have to, yes. 
I 

9 | SENATOR PETRIS: You don't see any other route for 

10 raising the money? 

11 ' MR. DEL CAMPO: Not at — not at the present time. 

12 I think we're going to have to work, and hopefully, 

ij 

13 we will come up with something that — that will tie in, of 

14 course, with the governmental picture of trying to get a better 

15 improvement in our teaching situations. 

16 SENATOR PETRIS: Now, the groups you're working with 

17 on affirmative action, bringing in more minorities — 

18 Ij MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

19 SENATOR PETRIS: — are generally lower income; 

20 aren't they? 

21 MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

22 SENATOR PETRIS: What kind of an impact would this 

23 have if we went right to $30 a unit as far as their 

i| 

24 accessibility goes? 

ii 

25 MR. DEL CAMPO: One of the things that I'm working 
with is working with the business community and trying to get 

27 ' 

ijobs for these youngsters — youngsters. The average age of a 

28 | 

l| 

,i 
i 

! 



1 community college student is somewhere in the high 20s, 28 or 
1:29. The people that we're getting, we're trying to get jobs for 
them so that they can support and pay their particular fees . 
Now, obviously, we'd not like to go up to $30 if 
possible, but the key is, how can they make money in order to 
help themselves. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I think the Governor described 

8 1 30 as the top. 

9 MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir, up to. 
SENATOR PETRIS: I don't think he anticipates going 

directly to 30. 

MR. DEL CAMPO: No. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Among the Board Members, is there 
any discussion of revenue sources they might recommend to the 
15 Governor? 

MR. DEL CAMPO: Not that I'm aware of at this 
particular point. We're still looking at this, sir. We're — 
in light of the budget, we're still looking at this. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I think the Governor needs all 

20 the help he can get. Last year, or rather the first year, he 

i' 

21 went through a very painful experience in his first year, trying 
'to make up a terrible, terrible, worst deficit in history, 

partly by cutting things, and partly by raising taxes. 

Now, last year he didn't want to talk about taxes, 



10 

n 

12 
13 
14 



16 

17 

18 | 

19 I' 



24 



25 



26 



27 



because he got into a lot of hot water. I can understand that. 

But now we have to look to that again as a possible source. 

i 

I Is that among the options — 



28 



10 

11 



10 



1 MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

2 SENATOR PETRIS: — your Board's looking at? 

3 MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

i 

4 One of the things we did, we voted at the last 

5 meeting to support the extension of a half cent emergency sales 

6 tax for a time certain, and earmark these funds for education. 
I 

I 

, That is one of the things that the Board has supported. 

!i 

8 SENATOR PETRIS: And that's been transmitted to the 

9 Governor? 
MR. DEL CAMPO: Well, I assume so, sir. 
SENATOR PETRIS: I hope you did, because he's come 

i! 

12 out against that early on. He's still very gun-shy about taxes. 

13 MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

14 SENATOR PETRIS: I understand it. I mean, his own 

: ! 

15 party said, "We're not going to support you any more because you 

|i 

16 voted for it. " 

I 

17 That ' s why I think it ' s important for the component 
1 

18 units of our public agencies to make some strong statements. 

19 I'm not saying he's going to do it, but if he's close 

I 

20 to the line, and he's exhausted all other possibilities, and he 
J 

21 imay want to reconsider the sales tax thing, if he gets a large 

number of groups out there urging him to do it, it'll make it a 

23 lot easier for him. 

24 |l So what I'm saying to you is, as long as your Board 
" i has already made that recommendation, I think it ought to be 

6 made public to generate the proper climate to make it easier for 
I the Governor to go that way if he decides that's a last resort. 

28 



11 



1 Do you see what I mean? 

2 MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. 

3 SENATOR PETRIS: I'd strongly urge you to pass that 

4 on to the whole Board and make it well known publicly. 

5 MR. DEL CAMPO: I'll do it, sir. 

6 SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

7 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Ayala. 

8 SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Del Campo, the community college 

9 system can no longer accept all the students that they would 

10 like to. 

11 What criteria is being used to determine what 

12 students are accepted and which are not accepted? 

13 MR. DEL CAMPO: At this point, there is no uniform 

i' 

14 way of doing that. We're trying to identify our student 

15 populations. In many of the districts the open-door policy 
still exists simply because of the differences of need. And so 
consequently, I can't give you a cut-and-dried answer, sir, on 
we're doing A, B, C, D, a cookbook answer. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is it first come, first served? 

MR. DEL CAMPO: I'm sorry? 

SENATOR AYALA: How are you doing it now? You don't 



16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



have a policy. Shouldn't we have one during the times when we 

23 can't accept all students, and use a fair method of determining 

24 how a student would be accepted or not? 

25 MR. DEL CAMPO: Yes, sir. We're taking a hard look 
26 



27 
28 



at that as to what is going to constitute that. We may have to 
come to that particular point. 



12 



1 Now it ' s based on need . We ' re trying to get the 

minority recruitment in and get a balance in that, that sort of 

3 thing. 

4 SENATOR AYALA: I consider the community college a 

5 pivotal part of our system, where a lot of students that get out 

6 of high school may not be mature enough to go to a four-year 
college, or economics comes into the picture, they can't. 

8 So, I think you should have some kind of a policy, to 

9 i be flexible, of course, but to make sure that all those who 

in 

,u ! would like to get involved are given that opportunity. 

1 1 

11 MR. DEL CAMPO: I would concur with the Senator on 

12 his remarks, because I happen to think the community colleges 

13 are excellent in our state, and I think that we do a good job in 

14 working with all youngsters, all students. 

15 SENATOR AYALA: Do you think a policy should be 

16 established for that? 

17 MR. DEL CAMPO: I think we're going to have to take a 
18 



19 
20 
21 
22 



very hard look at that, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any further questions? Is there 
any opposition in the audience? 

Do I hear a motion? 



23 SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

24 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves confirmation 
!l 

25 be recommended to the Floor. 

~)f\ 

Secretary will call the roll. 

27 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

28 ! 



13 



1 SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

2 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

3 SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

4 SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 

5 SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

6 SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 
1 Senator Roberti. 

8 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

9 SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 

,, li 

11 ; confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

II 

u Congratulations . 

13 MR. DEL CAMPO: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. 

14 ji CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Last but not least, Alice 

15 iPetrossian, Member of the Board of Governors of the California 

jl 

16 ; Community College System. 
We'll ask you what we ask all the Governor's 

appointees, and that is what your qualifications are for this 
position, which we know you have held for some time now. 



10 



20 MS. PETROSSIAN: I've been active in educational 

21 policy and politics for the last 12 years, serving now my third 

22 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Governor. And I've had the opportunity to work in all segments 
{of education. 

As an immigrant into the State of California, I 

jj 

consider myself a minority woman who's had the privilege and the 

i. 

pleasure of attending Los Angeles City College as the first step 
to my higher education career. So, from then on, I knew that I 



14 



1 had a commitment to the system which allowed me the opportunity 

2 to continue and then come back and serve. 

3 I served as a teacher for many years in the Hayward 

4 area. Purchased Senator Petris ' s house on 15 Crestmont. 

5 SENATOR PETRIS: You did? 

6 MS. PETROSSIAN: Yes, and lived there happily for ten 

7 years, and then was recruited — 

8 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: There's no conflict. Ten years is 

9 long enough time. 
MS. PETROSSIAN: Ten years is long enough, right. 
And then served as an administrator, which I 

presently am with the Glendale Unified School District, and have 
also served as a Professor at the Cal State system and the 
community college system. 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 



15 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

16 Mr. Karapetian has a little letter to let you know he 

17 did his duty. 

18 MS. PETROSSIAN: Good for Berd j . 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes. 
Are there any other questions? 



19 

20 
21 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



I'll ask you the same question that I asked Mr. Del 



Campo. Do you feel that the Master Plan should be revisited as 

pertains to community colleges? 
[j 

MS. PETROSSIAN: Yes, I believe, given the fiscal 

constraints that the state is under, we really do need to take a 

look at the Master Plan. And I believe all segments must be 

|j involved. 

28 ; 

ii 

I 



15 



1 Having looked at the budget from the Governor very 

carefully, I have a son, a freshman at U.C. — no, sophomore at 
U.C., lost a year here. And he is costing the taxpayers $18,000 

4 besides what he's costing his parents. I now have another son 
who intends to go into the same system within a year. At the 

6 same time, a freshman/sophomore at the California State 

University System costs us $8,000 on the taxpayer. And that 

il 
same student at the community colleges costs the taxpayer 4,000, 

9 if the budget figures were to be accurate. 

10 ij Given that, I think we need to revisit to see if we 

11 don't want to do more redirect for freshman/sophomore years, 

12 because those years the education is equal, and all the transfer 

13 .information we have says that it is more cost beneficial to the 

|| 

14 state to take a look at having more freshman and sophomores 

15 'educated at the community college for the State of California 

16 than to have it at any other level. 



17 
18 



27 
28 



I think the concentration, instead of turning away 
young people from our State College and University system for 



19 | graduate work and undergraduate work, might be the way to go in 

20 order to facilitate more students into the system. 

21 I also would like to take a look at how the segments 
communicate, and what articulation there is between the 

23 segments. To my own surprise, I see us in competition at times. 

24 We're serving the State of California, and there are times where 

! i 

it || 

we just aren't articulating for the benefit of our students. 

And I'd like to see the Master Plan revisited in order for us to 



look at the future and be more student service oriented than to 



16 



1 be more self or turf and domain oriented. 

2 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. Very well put. 

3 Any other questions of Ms. Petrossian? 

4 Is there any opposition in the audience? 

5 MS. PETROSSIAN: May I just answer something? 

6 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Please. 

MS. PETROSSIAN: Senator Ayala, you asked about 

8 setting up priorities . 

9 On our March agenda of the Community College Board of 
10 Governors, there will be a first attempt at setting up 

priorities . 

I must tell you that we expect this to be a very 
unpleasant agenda item, because if we say that senior citizens 

14 don't have a priority, we're in trouble because that seems to be 

15 the way for a number of senior citizens to have an outlet for 

16 themselves for continued growth. If we say the priority goes to 

17 high school students who are transfer-oriented, we're in 

18 trouble. So, no matter what we establish as a priority, we 

19 expect we will be alienating someone in our contingency or in 

20 our constituency. 

21 l However, the agenda item will be before us in March. 

22 SENATOR AYALA: I accept that. But shouldn't we do 

23 better than we're doing today, though? 

24 MS. PETROSSIAN: Oh, I think so. I think we have no 

25 choice. 

26 SENATOR AYALA: I know it ' s a problem the way you go, 

27 

but shouldn't you have some idea as to which student will be 

28 



17 



1 accepted and which will not, and you can't please everybody. 

That's for sure. But let's make a policy that's flexible enough 
to be used, generally speaking, and have an idea where we are, 

4 as opposed to not having a policy at all. 

5 MS. PETROSSIAN: That's right. And in fact, the 

6 Legislators and the Governor's Office who nudged us in this 
direction on the differentiated fee, the differentiated fee 

8 didn't please very many people, and so we decided there must be 

another way of looking at it, and certainly priorities will be 
10 something. We'll be having a report on very soon. 
H CHAIRMAN ROBERT I : Thank you again. 

12 SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

13 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly has a motion. 

14 Secretary will call the roll. 

15 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

16 | SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

17 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

18 SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

19 SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

20 SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

21 SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

22 Senator Roberti. 

23 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

24 SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

25 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 

confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

ii 

Congratulations. 

28 [Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately 

2:45 P.M.] 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



18 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this c* / 4* day of January, 1993. 



V3lVELYN' / J. MIZAK £) 
Shorthand Reporter 



A& 






215-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.50 per copy 
plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

11 00 J Street, Room B- 15 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 215-R when ordering. 



;>o 



3 
4 






Go, 






A 



V 



^ HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMEN I 3 D,,-r 

FEB 8 1993 






STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27,1993 
2:12 P.M. 



216-R 



i : 




2 




3 




4 ! 

i 




5 




6 




7 




8 1 




9 

I 




10 




11 

1 




12 1 

1 




13 : 




14 




15 




( 

16 j 


. 


17 j 




18 




19 




20 




21 




22 




23 




24 


1 


25 


Reported by: 




i 


26 


• 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



27 
28 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1993 
2:12 P.M. 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 



19 

20 : 

!! 
r 

21 

22 
23 I 

25 | 
26 
27 
28 



11 

APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI , Chair 

SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

MARY BARNETT, Member 
Acupuncture Committee 

DAVID Y.C. CHEN, O.M.D., Member 
Acupuncture Committee 



JANE M. EMERSON, Member 
17 Acupuncture Committee 



MARGUERITE HUNG, O.M.D., Member 
Acupuncture Committee 

ANGELA YING TU, Member 
Acupuncture Committee 

JEANNE TUMANJAN, Member 
Acupuncture Committee 

SENATOR DANIEL BOATWRIGHT, Chair 
Senate Busiess & Professions Committee 



Ill 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



INDEX 



Page 



Proceeding 1 

Opening Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI 1 

Governor's Appointees (Sitting as a Panel): 

DAVID Y.C. CHEN, O.M.D., Chairperson 

Acupuncture Committee 1 

Background and Experience 2 

ji 
ANGELA YING TU, Member 

Acupuncture Committee 3 

Background and Experience 3 

^MARGUERITE HUNG, O.M.D., Member 

; Acupuncture Committee 5 

Background and Experience 5 

MARY JANE BARNETT, Member 

Acupuncture Committee 6 

Background and Experience 7 

JANE M. EMERSON, Member 

Acupuncture Committee 7 

Background and Experience 8 

JEANNE TUMANJAN, Member 

Acupuncture Committee 10 

Background and Experience 10 

Statements by SENATOR DAN BOATWRIGHT re: 

Sole Purpose of All Boards and Commissions 

Is to Serve the Public 12 

Acupuncture Committee's Lack of Standards 13 

February Meeting with Arguments among 

Members 13 

Firing of Former Executive Officer 14 



IV 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 I 

■I 
8 

I 1 

9 

io !! 

>> I 

12 

I 
I 
13 

M 

15 

16 

17 

18 

lj 

19 

ii 

20 

21 

22 

Ii 
23 

24 ! 

25 ! 

26 ! 

27 
28 



INDEX (Continued) 

Acupuncture Committee's Handling of Kay Lam's 

Expired License 14 

Had Been Practicing without Valid License 

for over Five Years 15 

Board's Decision to Grant Amnesty to Lam 

and Others in Similar Situations 16 

Creation of Special Examination 16 

Lack of Continuing Education Requirement .... 16 

Theory that Special Exam and Amnesty Was 

Created for only One Person 17 

Request that Rules Committee Hold Off Confirmations 

until after February 1, 1993 17 

Request that Appointees Answer All Questions 

Submitted by SENATOR BOATWRIGHT before Confirmation 

Takes Place 17 

Response by MS. BARNETT re: 

Actions Leading to Motion to Grant Amnesty ... 18 

Advice from Legal Counsel 18 

Unanimous Vote to Have Staff Research 
Ms. Lam's Qualifications, Check for 
Complaints, and Review Records for 
Inadequacies 19 

Receipt of Internal Audit on October 14, 1992 . 19 

Lack of Records to Determine Status of 

Renewal Fees 19 

Committee's Awareness that over 200 

Acupuncturists Are in Deliquent Status 19 

Inheritance of Poor Administrative System ... 20 

Streamlining of System 20 

Mailing of 225 Letter to Delinquent 

Acupuncturists regarding Application for 

Amnesty 20 



1 !: 

2 I 

I! 

3 

4 | 

5 
6 

s 

9 | 
10 J 

,4 I 

15 

16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



INDEX (Continued) 

Response by DR. CHEN re: 

Date of Appointment to Committee 21 

Instruction to Interim Executive Officer 

to Investigate 21 

Allegation of Favortism Due to Racism 21 

Budget of Acupuncture Committee Pulled 

in 1990 22 

Statements by SENATOR BOATWRIGHT re: 

Granting of Amnesty and Creation of Special 
Examination never Done by Any Other Board ... 23 

Sole Purpose Is to Make It Easier 
for Unqualified Persons to Obtain 
License 23 

Lack of Protection for the Public 23 

Practice of State Bar re: Lapse of 

License and Renewal Fees 24 

Reiteration of Request that Rules Committee 

Find Out How Many Took Advantage of Amnesty . . 24 

Response by MS. BARNETT re: 

Huge Numbers of Lapsed Licenses Reason 

for Motion to Grant Amnesty 24 

Working on Regulations to Strengthen 

Penalties 25 

Status to Date of 229 Letters that Were 

Mailed by Acupuncture Committee 26 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Deadline to Respond 26 

Date of Next Acupuncture Committee Meeting ... 26 

Response by MS. BARNETT re: 

Need to Know Number of People Affected 26 

Date of Next Regular Exam 27 



2 

3 



16 
17 



18 

,9 

21 

22 

23 i 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



vi 
INDEX (Continued) 
Statements by SENATOR BOATWRIGHT res 

Poor Enforcement Record 27 



Should Be Requirement that Licensees that 
4 Have Lapsed Five Years or More Should Take 

Initial Exam Again 27 



Creation of Special Exam 28 

Response by MS. BARNETT re: 



5 
6 

7 

Discussion about Making New Exam Tougher 

8 than Initial Examination 28 

9 Question by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

10 Reason for Different Exam 28 

11 Response by DR. CHEN re: 

n i 

lz Three Choices under Current Law 29 

13 Reasons for Decision 29 

14 | Statements by SENATOR BOATWRIGHT re: 

15 



Letter by DR. CHEN Explaining Competency 

Examination 30 

Lack of Standard 31 

Series of Questions relating to Cost 31 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Acupuncture Committee Should Look at 

State Bar's Procedures 32 

Request to Find Out Where Monitoring 

Broke Down 32 

Responses by MS. EMERSON re: 

Acupuncture Committee Working on 

Tightening Regulations for Lapsed 

Licenses 33 

Working to Streamline Deadlines 33 






Vll 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

14 
15 

.6 



17 






19 

20 

ii 

21 

22 

23 
24 
25 

26 

|i 
27 



INDEX (Continued) 

No Decision Yet on Special Exam 

Funds for Tests Would Come from 

Examinees 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Clarification on Allowable Lapse 

Time for Licenses 

Comparison to DMV ' s Procedure 

Responses by MS. TU re: 

Inadequacy of Current Acupuncture 

Laws and Regulations 

Astonishment over Number of Acupuncturists 
with Lapsed Licenses 

Justification for Dismissal of Former 
Executive Officer 

Statement by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Driver's License vs. License to Practice 
Acupuncture 

Response by DR. CHEN re: 

Renewal Fees not Collected by 

Acupuncture Committee 

Internal Memo Requesting that 
Acupuncture Committee Have 
Notification of Payees 

Response by MS. EMERSON re: 

Request to Have Procedure Similar 

to DMV ' s for License Renewal 

Question by SENATOR BEVERLY re: 

Counsel to Acupuncture Committee 

Statement of Committee ' s Intention by 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI 

Appointments Held Over for One Week . . . 



33 

34 



34 
34 



35 
35 
36 



36 



36 



37 



37 

38 

38 

39 



28 



Vlll 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



INDEX (Continued 

Opportunity to Answer Questions Posed 

by SENATOR BOATWRIGHT 39 

i 

Opportunity to Learn How Many People 

Applied for Amnesty 39 

Termination of Proceedings 40 

Certificate of Reporter 41 



->-> 



23 

24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

1 

— 00O00 — 

2 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We're going to be joined for the 
3 

hearing on the governor ' s appointees to the Acupuncture 

4 

Committee by Senator Dan Boatwright, the Chairman of the Senate 
Business and Professions Committee, which is the committee which 

6 

hears the subject matter of acupuncture questions. 

I think I will ask all the members of the Acupuncture 

8 

i! Board to come up as a group. We don't ordinarily do that, but I 
9 

will call you name. If you could come up, and we will hear the 

10 

Board at once. 

ll 

I! 

So, if Dr. David Y.C. Chen would come forward, Jane 

12 

I Emerson, Marguerite Hung, Angela Ying Tu, and Jeanne Tumanjan. 

These are all Governor's appointees to the Acupuncture 

14 

Committee. Oh, excuse me, Mary Barnett. 

15 

Sorry, Ms. Barnett. You were at the very top. 

16 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Chairman, question. 

17 



18 
19 
20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Are these appointments who have been re-appointed, or 
are they being appointed for the first time? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I think each is a different case. 
Some are first time, and some are re-appointments. 

Why don't you indicate that for Senator Ayala, if 
you've sat on the Board previously, or if this is your first 
appointment . 

DR. CHEN: Honorable Senators, I'm David Chen, 
Chairperson of Acupuncture Committee. I'm seeking for re- 
appointment. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



The rest of the members here, five of them, are new 
appointees . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good, thank you. 

SENATOR AYALA: You're a holdover from the prior 
board, and these are all new appointees here? 

DR. CHEN: Yes, your Honor. Thank you, your Honor. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: If each one of you could briefly 

state why you feel you are qualified to assume this position; 

i 1 

give us a little review of your background in this area, and 
we'll just start from my left, your right, to the end of the 
table. Then I think Senator Boatwright has some questions and 
observations that he would like to share. 

So, once again, identify yourself, and then we'll 
just go from right to left. 

DR. CHEN: Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, honorable 
Senators . 

My name is David Chen. I appreciate this opportunity 
to be here today. I'm very, very glad. I have been working 
with the committee for one year with all these outstanding 
members that are in front of you today. And they are not only 
the community leaders, they are also the toughest and the best 
persons from every corner from California. They're devoting 
their wisdoms, their energy, their time, most of all, even their 
own money to committed [sic] to do public service as a team. I 
can say this is the best team that I ever worked with. 

And why I want to be on this committee, I've been 
practicing acupuncture for 17 years. And 17 years hard-working, 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



; f rom a poor immigrant to today, as a citizen of the United 
; States of America, and I have my own car. I have my own house 
i and with a decent life. This is all given to me by this 
beautiful society. 

Seventeen years went by real, real fast, and I asked 
myself: what can I do for this society? The most direct answer 
is to serve the public. So, I apply for position, and honorable 
Governor Pete Wilson appoint me to this committee, and giving me 
this opportunity to stand in front of you today and ask for your 
j confirmation to make my dream come true, to serve the public. 
I personally do not have any personal conflict of 
j interest, nor personal ego, nor anything to gain from this 
position, except to serve the public. I want to do my job with 
your kind confirmations. I will do my best to serve the public. 
And again, I appreciate this opportunity to appear in 
|! front of honorable Senators today. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Doctor. 
DR. CHEN: My pleasure. Thank you, sir. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Next. 
MS. TU: Thank you. 

I want to thank the Rules Committee — 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Your name is — 
MS. TU: My name is Angela Tu, and I'm a private 
practicing acupuncturist in Walnut Creek, and also an Associate 
Professor of Chinese Medicine at the Academy of Chinese Culture 
and Health Sciences in Oakland. 

I also want to thank the Committee for the kindness 



12 
13 



in hearing us out on our confirmation, and thank the opportunity 
to appear before the Senate Committee. 

I was urged to apply for this job by my colleagues 
from the profession, feeling that — who felt that my expertise 
and experience in my — in this profession would help the 



committee to a better understanding of the professions, and in 



guiding and in leading this profession to a better standards 
where it can better serve the public interest and the people of 



9 California. 

10 And I feel honored to have been given this 

11 



opportunity to serve this country who has adopted me, at 50 
years old, to become a citizen in this country. 

My background, that I have been trained in both 



14 eastern and western medicine. I was already initially trained 



15 

16 
17 

18 I 
19 

20 : 

21 | 

22 
23 

24 

! 

25 
26 J 

27 

i 

28 i 



as a western physician and practiced 22 years of western 
medicine in China, and the last five years, after being trained 
in Chinese medicine, I was able to integrate both eastern and 
western medicine together in my practice and personally 
experience the benefits of calm, of integrating both medicine 
and how much good it can do to the patients and also in reducing 
the care — the costs of health care. 

Since getting my — receiving my license in 1982 in 
this country, I have worked consistently in improving the 
quality of the acupuncture profession, both in education-wise 
and in professional activities. I have also actively lobbied 
for the benefits of the — the recognition of acupuncture, and I 
have had the pleasure and honor to meet with a lot of the 



1 Senators — Senator Petris and Senator Roberti — on different 

2 occasions at the State Capitol. 

3 I have been for nine years consecutively a board 

4 member of the California Certified Acupuncturists Association in 

5 charge of continuing education, in charge of public interest, 

6 public affairs, and political affairs. I have also been 

actively involved in the National Commission for Certified — 

j 

8 for Certification of Acupuncturists, and I am currently one of 

9 the nine commissioners on the board. I served as a member of 

10 the Examination Committee and have been actively involved in 

11 developing the examination, the National Board examinations in 

12 — from the comprehensive examination, the point location 



13 



14 



15 



examination, the clean needle technique courses, and the clean 
needle technique examinations . And through these years , the 
examinations have gradually been established for — recognized 



16 for its validity, reliability and fairness. 

1 7 And I felt that my expertise in this field will also 

18 the state committee in adapting the rules and regulations that 

19 is needed to improve the professions. 

20 Again, I thank you. 

21 jl CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

DR. HUNG: My name is Marguerite Hung. I'm from San 
Diego. 

I practiced acupuncture in South San Diego, Chula 
Vista, since 1980. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I have 
dedicated my life to the care of the patients through 



23 

24 

il 
25 

26 

27 



1 traditional Chinese medicine. This ancient medical art has a 
history of over 5,000 years. It's also a part of my own 

3 cultural history. 

4 With the cultural diversity that presently exists in 

i 

5 California, it is a fact that acupuncture and oriental medicine 

6 is primary health care for several hundred thousand residents 

7 of our state. 

8 I was honored when my profession — professional 
association support my appointment. I also believe that a 
bilingual committee member can be an asset of this unique body. 
Principally, both oversee and serve so many who are unable to 
communicate English well to the public. 

I promise my best effort to demand confidence with 
the regulatory matters, and to give a fair hearing to all these 
who appear before the committee. I believe that by upgrading 
educational and professional standards, it will serve the our 
profession and consumers, beneficiaries. 

In all my work on the Acupuncture Committee, I shall 
remember the confidence placed in me by appointment, and the 
trust placed in me by the Senate through this confirmation 
process. I accept it as an honor to serve my profession and to 
protect the welfare of the consumers of our state. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Ms . Barnett . 

MS. BARNETT: Good afternoon, Senators, Mr. Chairman 
and Senators. My name is Mary Jane Barnett. I am a resident of 



10 

11 

12 

13 
14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Carmichael, and I'm the public member appointed in April, 1992. 

I feel that I'm qualified to be a public member of 
the Acupuncture Committee for a variety of reasons. First, 
since 1968, I've been involved in numerous volunteer 
organizations throughout the state, the first one being 
appointment from the Governor ' s Conference on Youth during my 
college years. I've been a board member of three different 
schools in Southern California, and now at two in Sacramento. 

My extensive leadership training as an event 
coordinator with the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, and 
meeting planner, coupled with my life's work as a mother of 
seven children, afford me the skills necessary to manage the 
large amount of information that we at the Acupuncture Committee 
review. 

i! 

Secondly, I've been an Acupuncture Committee member 
for the past ten months, working with a group of dedicated women 
and man, both acupuncturists and public members, who have 
diligently worked to ensure that both the public and profession 
are well served. I sit on the Education Committee, the 
Executive Committee, and the Enforcement Committee, and wish to 
continue the work that we began last year. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MS. EMERSON: Good afternoon, gentlemen. 

Mr. Chairman, I'm Janie Emerson. I'm from the San 

.Diego area. I was appointed in March as a public member of this 

I 

committee. 



1 I'll just highlight some things from my background, 

since I know you have that information in front of you. 

3 I went to the University of California at Santa 

4 Barbara and graduated in Chinese History. I have always had a 
deep love and desire of the orient, and went on and pursued 

6 graduate work in that area and studied Chinese history and 

culture, which gives me an understanding of the background and 
history of these people and some of their modus operandi, which 

9 is an important factor on this committee. 

10 I've been in business for over 25 years, and the last 

11 15 years, I've had my own business as a facilitator and business 

12 consultant. And I am hired by nonprofits, political 

13 organizations, private businesses, and large corporations to 

14 'come in and solve their problems, to make dramatic results and 

15 turn companies around, to streamline operations, save money, and 



i 



16 



serve the public better. All of these things have already been 



17 put to use in this committee. 

18 As a very small child, I was introduced to every kind 

19 of medicine known, because my parents believed that 

20 nontraditional medicine was a good adjunct to traditional 

21 medicine. So, I have been party to this kind of practice ever 
since I was a small child. I learned the value of looking at 

jail different kinds of practices from all different types of 
people to evaluate if they are helpful. And I feel that this 

2<i '• 

type of combination is the future of health care for the United 
26 States . 

27 

I have been an active volunteer for years and years . 

28 



1 I've been in leadership positions in the Junior League of San 
Diego. I was selected as the member of Lead San Diego as one of 
the future leaders of that city, and we had a long and detailed 

4 training course. I've served in many, many other positions 

throughout my time as a volunteer, and part of that was to learn 

ij 

6 to give back to the community that I was so fortunate to gain 

7 skills, contacts, and business from. 

8 My goals as a member of this committee are to serve 

1 1 

the public, to represent their views to the committee, to hear 

i 

i their views and bring them, and to be an advocate for them. 

Another goal was to streamline the functions of the 
committee to make it more efficient, more accessible to the 
j public, and easier to understand. We've already accomplished 
many of those and have more to work on. 

Another goal was to make California a leader in this 
profession throughout the United States. We have a great 

! opportunity here, with many things happening in health care 

i 

right now to really make this a quality committee, a quality 
profession that's looked to by everybody. 

In the last ten months, as Ms. Barnett said, we've 
dealt with some thorny issues, and I've been honored to serve 



10 

n 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



with a committee that is committed to the acupuncture excellence 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



in California, a group of hard-working, creative, dedicated 
professionals who are not afraid to disagree, and who are 
willing to make a compromise and do the best for this 
profession. I am proud to serve with these people and hope to 
do so in the future. 



10 



1 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

2 MS. TUMANJAN: Hello and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman 

3 and Committee Members . 

4 My name is Jeanne Tumanjan. I'm a licensed 
acupuncturist. I've been licensed since 1987, and have been 
involved in alternative health care since 1981. I am currently 
in practice with a medical doctor in Orange County and am very 

8 dedicated to my work. 

9 My qualifications prior to becoming an Acupuncture 

10 Committee member include working with the California Acupuncture 

11 Association. Since 1987, my activities included being on their 

12 Board of Directors, the Orange County Chapter representative, 

13 and the Conference Director and Coordinator of the Association's 

14 annual Conferences. I currently sit on the Board of Directors 

15 for the Center for Oriental Medical Research and Education as 

16 the Executive Secretary, and am also in charge of public 

17 relations and fundraising. 

18 My past positions included being an office manager of 

19 acupuncture and chiropractive offices, as well as being in upper 

20 management for a real estate developer for seven years . 

21 My reason for applying for this position was mainly 
- z due to my frustration and deep concern with the representation 



23 



and lack of accomplishments of the past committee's ethics and 



activities. These were — there were constant problems, as I'm 
sure you all know. I felt that at any moment, the Acupuncture 
Committee could cease to exist if things didn't seriously 
change. 

28 



11 



1 My main goal as a committee member is to ensure the 

safety and competence of practitioners to the public, as well as 

3 raising the standards and credibility of the committee itself. 

4 During this past year, I've spent countless hours 

5 researching each issue, evaluating all points of view, and 

6 voting objectively, especially on some of the more recent 

7 controversial issues. 

8 My main interest is in enforcement. As Co-Chair of 

9 the Enforcement Committee, I have begun work with our Executive 



10 

n 



Officer on changing long overdue regulations, instituting 
1 disciplinary guidelines, creating random audits on continuing 

12 education providers and acupuncturists, and follow-through on 

13 lapsed and delinquent licensees. 

14 My other objective includes increasing favorable 

15 communications between the profession, the State Legislature, 

16 the schools, the state associations, and the public so that we 

17 may be looked upon with integrity instead of dread. 

18 Our rules and regulations speak of equal 
representation of all cultures of the profession. Believe it or 
not, I am the first Caucasian acupuncturist to ever be appointed 
to this committee since its inception. I feel my position can 
greatly bridge the gap that has long been standing among the 
diversity of our profession. 

In closing, I would like to someday be able to look 
back upon my tenure on the committee with pride for the progress 
and changes the committee has made towards raising the 
profession's credibility and standards at all levels. 



19 

20 

i 

21 J 

22 

23 

24 

i 

25 

26 

i 
27 i 



12 



1 Thank you for your time. 

2 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Doctor. 

3 Are there any questions? Senator Boatwright. 

4 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

5 Members. 

6 I'm here today because I have grave concern about the 
Acupuncture Committee. When I was appointed Chairman of the 

8 Business and Professions Committee, I determine that one of the 

9 things that would happen would be that all the boards, 
commissions, that were subject to the jurisdiction of that 
committee would finally try to get from the committee the 
realization that they're there for only one purpose. And 
Senator Craven, you've heard me say this many times. We and 
they are only there to serve the public, to protect the public. 

They're not there simply to license, so someone can 
hang a certification on their walls saying, "I'm licensed by the 
State of California". It's not there to promote associations. 

It * s there to make sure that the people who are 
licensed have a certain standard of criteria that they have met 
that will ensure that they can adequately protect the public in 
21 ; their field of endeavor. 

11 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



ii 



And I've said that over and over. I spoke to the 
Executive Officers Association. I told them that there. I've 
written Jimmy Conran many times and told him that. I've had 
discussions with him. 

And since taking over, I don't think there has been a 
scintilla of thought, or breath of air, that this committee or 



23 
24 



26 

27 



13 






1 any of its members is there for any purpose other than to serve 

2 the public, unlike, I think, what it used to be. 

3 That was my charge when you, Senator Roberti, 

4 appointed me the Chairman, was to, quote, and I'll put it in my 
words, "Clean it up," unquote. That's what you wanted, and I've 

6 tried to do that. 

7 Everything that we ' ve done has been focused on making 
sure that the public is protected by the boards that license 

9 people in various fields of endeavor. 

And I have watched some of the boards dramatically 
improve. Some of the boards have not improved, and frankly, 
some of the boards have, in my opinion, slipped. 

I believe that the Acupuncture Committee has not 
measured up to the standards of quality that we desire of our 
boards that operate to protect the public. I have followed them 
rather closely. As a matter of fact, not too long ago, I 
believe it was in February, I appeared before the board in the 
Consumer Affairs Building. And at that time, they were in great 
arguments among themselves that the press was covering and 
writing about, and it was in complete disarray. And I'm sure we 
all remember that. And I went there and urged them to get their 
act together, and not to air their dirty linen in public, but 
rather to do the job for the people of the State of California 
and not the special interests. 

Shortly after that — and this is not part of this 
hearing. You may want to make it part of it — the person who 
was the Executive Officer was fired by the board. Did not 



10 
11 
12 
13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



3 



14 



1 resign, was fired by the board for whatever reasons they had. I 
have a great comprehensive file on that, but that's not 
necessarily before us. 

4 But I think what is before us is the competency of 

5 and the make-up of the current board, and whether or not they 

6 are in effect protecting the public of the State of California 
in their duties when they raise their right hand to carry out 

8 the laws of the State of California and the Constitution when 

p 

9 they're sworn in as members. 
A most recent example of that is that it was brought 

to their attention earlier last year that there was a former 
acupuncturist who was still practicing acupuncture who had let 
,J her license not only lapse, but had gone beyond the death knell 

14 expiration period of five years, which is much too long in law, 

15 and that this person was practicing still. And on June 1st, 
1992, when this was brought to the attention of the board at a 



10 

n 

12 



16 



17 hearing on August — well, in June it was brought to their 



18 
19 
20 



attention, because it was brought to their attention back in 

May. The person was informed to cease and desist from 

i practicing; the Code sections were cited. And the person was 



21 told: 



22 



"To obtain a valid license, you must 



23 reapply with the enclosed application and 

24 meet the following conditions according to 

25 Section 4967: 

(a) Has not committed any acts or 

27 

crimes constituting grounds for denial. 

28 



15 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



(b) Take and pass the examination 
. . . which would be required ... as if an 
initial application for certification was 
being made, or otherwise establishes to 
the satisfaction of the committee that he 
or she is qualified to practice as an 
acupuncturist . 

(c) Pay all of the fees that would 
be required if an initial application for 
certification was being made. 

"You are hereby instructed to 
immediately cease and desist from the 
practice of acupuncture until you obtain a 
valid license. You are presently 
practicing without a valid license, which 
is a violation of state law. " 
And the evidence sustained that, that the person had been 
practicing without acupuncturist license in the State of 
California for over a period of five years, which is a violation 
of law, which means the person had committed an act which could 
constitute a crime or grounds for denial . 

And so, I was concerned, based upon a citizen writing 
me a letter as Chairman of Business and Professions, and she 
can't be here today, according to Ms. Michel. I was hopeful she 
would, but she has a letter that's dated October 2nd, in which I 
think she pretty succinctly lays out her concerns. And having 
been subsequently dealt with, this issue, they became my 



4 



16 



1 concerns. That is, that what had happened by this person that 
was practicing, it was unlawful practice under the Code section; 
it was a misdemeanor under Section 4935 of the Business and 
Professions Codes. 

5 No action was ever taken against this person, but 

6 rather to the contrary, what has happened now is this. In 
November, this board, the majority of this board, and this 

8 Chairman voting "aye", voted to grant to this lady and other 

9 'persons who were delinquent beyond that drop-dead date of five 
years an amnesty period and allow them to not take the initial 
examination, which I had no problem with, paying all of the 
appropriate fees, but rather that they will create a special 
examination for these people, and if they passed — and we don't 
know what it's going to be, of course, this little special 

15 examination — then, of course, they become an acupuncturist in 

1 

16 the State of California, and they go out and practice their 

17 medicine on the people of the State of California. 

18 And I have concern about that because, one, what 

19 continuing education have they had in the interim? I'm advised 
there's no continuing education that's required. And if that's 
so, then shouldn't they have to take the initial examination to 
show we people here, who are also responsible to the citizens, 
that we are licensing competent medical personnel? 

In addition to that, it's my understanding that only 
a handful of people have applied. 

Now, the closure date is February 1st. As of 
February 1st, we will be able to see whether or not my theory is 



10 

ll 

12 
13 
14 



20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 






4 



17 



1 correct, that the exam, the special exam and amnesty period, was 
created for simply one person, or whether it truly was a blanket 
amnesty period. 

So, regardless of how you would like to do today, or 
tomorrow, or next week, I would ask that you at least wait until 
we see how many people actually qualify to take the examination, 
and then let's determine whether or not this was a special 
interest case, such as the old board did when they sold 
examinations all over the State of California, and people went 
to prison out of that. 

I mean, this has been historically, since it was 
created in 1980, a corrupt board. This has been the board that 
has been the sore on the belly of the sow of the State of 

14 California. 

15 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: In fairness, these members are 
16 



10 

li 

12 
13 



17 
18 
19 
20 

21 

;2 

23 

24 
25 
26 
27 



new. 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Some are new, some, not all are 
new that sit on the board. One is not new, though. 

However, some of the members who are sitting here 
today did vote for the amnesty period. And I have -- some did 
not, though. Let me say that also. 

I have a series of questions that I think should be 
answered. They're in writing. And I think between now and, if 
you would, your next meeting, when we can make a determination 
as to the number of people who did apply under the amnesty 
program, that these questions should be answered, because 
they're very serious fiscal questions, and it is, number one — 



18 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I think Ms. Barnett wants to 
address the earlier point on amnesty, and then, Senator, if you 
could then — 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Okay. 

MS. BARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Since she's the public member who 
indicated, I think maybe that would be appropriate. 

MS. BARNETT: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: And then we ask ~ 

MS. BARNETT: Since I was the maker of the motion for 

the amnesty also — 

I 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

MS. BARNETT: — I'd like to recreate, and I won't 
take much of your time. And I'll read it so I can go a little 
quicker, the actions leading to my motion for amnesty at that 
famous meeting. 

In June, the Executive Officer of the Acupuncture 

Committee sent Kay Lam a cease and desist order because of her 

i| 

lapsed license. 

At our August, 1992 meeting, the committee addressed 
her five-year delinquent renewal case. During the discussion, 
and while listening to the statement made on behalf of Kay Lam, 
it became clear to the committee members that we needed more 
information and wanted an investigation into her concerns as she 
raised them. 

In order to reinstate her license, our committee 
counsel at the time explained to the committee that we had the 



I 



19 



1 option by law to waive the re-taking of the license exam, or 
re-order her to take the — to re-take the exam. In any event, 

3 her application and initial license fee would be collected. We 

4 also understood that legally, no back fees could be collected. 

5 After the committee questioned staff about 

6 irregularities in our past record keeping, we voted unanimously 
to have staff research the qualifications of Mrs. Lam, check for 

8 any complaints on file, and also review our records for 

9 inadequacies before taking any final action. 

10 Let me just interject at this point, on October 14th, 

11 1992, the committee received in writing an internal audit 

12 opinion which confirmed the suspicions of many of the members 

13 that you see today regarding the lack of record keeping, poor 

14 record keeping, and the need for the adoption of strong 

15 procedures for retaining licensing documentation. 

16 At our November meeting, then, we again took up the 

17 case of Kay Lam. We were assured by our staff that they had 

18 researched the files, and the staff was confident that Kay Lam 

19 was not practicing acupuncture since she had been notified in 
the June written letter that she was not licensed. And staff 
also explained to us at that time that the past records of the 
committee were in such disarray that proper documentation could 
not be obtained regarding the status of her renewal fees for the 
past five years. 

Let me just note here that this committee has been 
aware for some time that more than 200 acupuncturists have 
delinquent stature, and may be in the same category as Mrs. Lam. 



21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



4 



20 



1 It was with this in mind that I created the motion to allow 
amnesty, or more appropriately, I feel that we should name it 
now a grace period by which this issue can be resolved. 

This issue isn't whether Kay Lam thought she paid, 
whether she never received a renewal notice, or even whether she 

6 was notified in the past years that she had a revocation of her 

7 license. 

8 I see the issue, and did at that time, as one of 
protecting the public and the profession by upholding the laws 
and regulations . 

But, if I might be quite honest with this Committee, 
this Acupuncture Committee has inherited an administrative 
system that did not serve either the public or the profession. 
Over the last ten months, since we have been appointed, we have 
streamlined the system of record keeping, made form changes that 
are now being used as models for other boards and committees, 
and we feel confident that this situation will never occur 
again. 

My motion was meant to deal with the larger picture 
of the past delinquencies, and to clean up the process that we 
had begun ten months ago. This matter and this issue will be 
resolved at the February 3rd Acupuncture Committee meeting. 

We have sent 225 letters to those whose licenses are 
more than five years delinquent. These people have until 
February 1st to apply to take their licensing exam. 

And if I just might add at the end of this, I 
appreciate all of Senator Boatwright ' s comments. I wish I had 



10 

u 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 

17 



19 
20 

21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



21 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



been appointed in order to — early enough to hear your comments 
at the February meeting. But please rest assured that we, 
sitting here in this room today, have made those promises to 
each other many, many times since taking over. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, Doctor. 

DR. CHEN: Yes, honorable Chairperson and honorable 
Senator, and honorable Senator Boatwright, with your permission, 
I would like to report to you a couple of things. 

As number one, I was appointed on this committee in 
1990. I had nothing to do with the public record that was all 
the scandal examination which occurred in '86, '87, and '88. 

And number two, I would like to, with your 
permission, report it to you that it's Kay Lam's case that we as 
a committee, and I as the Chairperson, discovered this 
situation. Immediately, I sent an internal memo to instruct 
Curt Augustine, who was the Interim EO at the time, to 
immediately investigate and send out a letter to lapse her 
license, and notify her, "You are not supposed to practice," 
right immediately. 

Number three, I further instructed Curt Augustine to 
make sure follow up on this and bring it up to the full 
committee. 

And at the same time, with your permission, I would 
really like to say that I am not a Chinese. I'm not an Asian. 
I am an Asian-American. 

And people always approach me because so-and-so is 
Asian, therefore you're on their side. I think that's wrong. 



22 



1 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: No, I don't think that was 

2 referred to in my comments. 

3 DR. CHEN: I know you didn't, but as sometime -- 

4 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: I don't think anyone did on this 

5 Committee. 

6 DR. CHEN: — and I never have personally any kind of 

7 relationship with that person. And especially she personally 

8 thinks I'm one of her enemies. 

9 And I can honestly report it to you, none of our 

10 members here consider that she is a friend, nor we have any kind 

11 of personal connection at all. 

12 And I further would like to report it, in 1990, the 

13 budget of this committee was pulled by State of California, 

14 Senate Rules and Rules Committee, and approved by especially 

15 Senator Rosenthal and Assemblyman Filante. And I went ahead as 

16 the Chairperson of this committee and report to them, and asked 

17 them to guide me, to help me to go ahead and make sure that this 

18 committee get on the track, which later on they give us back the 

19 budget. 

20 And they are happy to see the examination 

21 progressing, that Acupuncture Committee does not run any 
examination any more. And they are also happy to see that this 

23 committee keep moving on to a point that Senator Rosenthal and 

24 Filante, including State of California, all different 
departments, change this committee into — from a symbol of 
shame into a symbol of improvement. 

To my concept, I know we have not done enough. I'm 



25 
26 
27 



23 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



not asking you to say, give us the credit, no. 

To my concept, it's this committee has been trying 
its best, which is the spirit of the United States, to make 
from the worst and move on to be the best and to be better. We 
maybe not reach your standard which we keep working to reach 
your standard, and we will not yield back. But this is the 
spirit of the United States, that we will keep on working on 
that. 

And thank you so much, your Honor. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Dr. Chen. 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: May I continue now? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Boatwright, yes. 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: No other board, and Sharon can 
verify this, no other board, commission, of the State of 
California has granted an amnesty period and created a special 
examination for its licensees such as this board has done, ever 
in its entire history. 

It's my belief that this was done for the sole 
purpose of making it easier for people to pass an examination 
who are not otherwise qualified. If they're otherwise 
qualified, why don't they take the initial examination and pass 
it and practice? 

That's my point. I don't think the public's being 

I 
protected. 

Incidentally, there are some attorneys here. I 

called the State Bar, Amy Stewart, whom most of us know at the 

State Bar. The annual dues are payable on February 1st of each 



24 



1 year. Let me just show you, we don't deal with health and life, 
as do acupuncturists. February 1st of each year. If an 

3 attorney does not pay his or her dues by March 5th, the dues are 

4 assessed by a 50% increase. If this increased amount is not 

5 paid by August 1st, the license is automatically suspended. If 

6 an attorney still practices law beyond that date, he or she is 
guilty of practicing law without a license; can, by the 

8 appropriate authority, be disbarred or suspended or fined; or, 

9 quite often, if it continues after they're notified to cease and 

10 desist, they're prosecuted. They're put in jail. 

11 And I think that standards have to be fairly uniform 

12 throughout the State of California. I'm opposed to what 

13 happened here. I don't think the public is protected. 

14 I would ask, and I think it's real vital, that of all 

15 these 290 letters that were sent out — 

16 MS. BARNETT: Two hundred and twenty-nine, Senator. 

17 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Two hundred and twenty-nine 

18 "letters that were sent out, I'd like to see how many people took 

19 advantage of this amnesty program. And I think the Rules 

20 Committee should know that. It will give you a better handle on 

21 whether or not this was done as a special interest thing, or 
done to protect the public. 

So, that's what I'm asking today. 

24 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Barnett or Ms. Emerson. 

25 MS. BARNETT: Yes, Senator. 

26 If I just might add, it is exactly because this is a 

27 

life and death situation that I conceived the plan, as it were, 

28 



22 
23 



25 



1 to find these. And at the time, we were hearing all kinds of 
numbers; 229 was the number we actually sent out, but we were 
hearing upwards of 500 that were behind us that nobody had dealt 
with, that the records in the office were in such a shambles, 
nobody could find anything. It was just a mess. I mean, 

6 literally, people would — we could not track these people. 

7 We had talked about this at our very first meeting 
liand all of our committee meetings, trying to set up some 



4 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 



20 

21 



25 
26 

27 
28 



systems, and we were in place doing that. And one of the things 
we're working on in our new regulations is to strengthen the 
penalties . 

But let me just get back to this plan of mine. We 
ihad, coming on to this committee, a lot of messy issues to deal 
with. And most of it was just the way things were handled 



15 before us. Nothing we really had any control over. 

16 When we heard that there were maybe 500 people out 

17 there, could be, practicing acupuncture with lapsed licenses, 

18 :l some up to five years, we wanted to work on this right away. We 

19 didn't — we felt — I felt specially because we had sat with 
Kay Lam in front of us for two meetings, that we could be doing 
this for the rest of our term. I wanted to deal with all of 
them in one fell swoop, as it were. To set up a plan where we 

23 could find them, if we could find them, notify them, finally, 

24 



because we're not sure that they were ever notified before. 
Tell them to cease and desist, and to put them into this program 
j where we could get them to become a licensed acupuncturist in 
the State of California. 



26 



1 We have sent 229 letters: 79 have gone to foreign 

sources; 51 were out of state; 99 in California. We have 12 
undeliverable in foreign areas; 15 undeliverable out of state; 

4 

and 57 that have come back to us in California undeliverable. 

That leaves 42 people out there that actually — we assume, 

6 because of this post office — that have received our letter 

informing them that, cease and desist, and that we're getting — 

trying — we're offering you the opportunity to apply for this 
I 
9 plan. 

10 We have received as to date, and the deadline isn't 

i 

11 



— hasn't passed, 12 requests. 

12 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Again, when will the deadline be? 

13 MS. BARNETT: February 1st. 

14 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Monday. 

15 MS. BARNETT: And we set February 1st as our standard 
16 



17 
18 
19 
20 

21 
22 
23 



27 
28 



because we knew we would be meeting on February 3rd, and we 
would further decide what we would do with whatever group of 
people, whether it be 229 we had to deal with, or 3. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: When do you meet? 

I 

MS. BARNETT: February 3rd at the Department of 
Consumer Affairs. It happens to be in Sacramento this time, 
this quarter. 

And we will look at the total picture at that point; 



make our decision as to — if there are a few, just a few people 

that have actually gotten into this process, you know, it's 
26 



ridiculous to think that we should charge the committee or the 
State of California a special — money because we want to 



4 



7 



27 



1 process them quickly. 

2 Our exam is coming up in May and June. It is my 

3 personal feeling that I would move them over. 
If we have a number of people that have come to us in 

this situation, they really are a different group of people than 
6 are the first-time exam takers. 

And believe me, it was my foremost — the foremost 
issue in my mind was to rid ourselves by law, and protecting the 
State of California, the population, from illegal practices, to 
try to take care of what was behind us and go forward. 

If you ever sit at any of our committee meetings, you 
know we're a tough bunch. Dealing with seven children in my 
house, I have to be. 

And when you have a law, you enforce it. And if you 
let one go, then the next one comes up to you and says, "Well, 
you let him go. What are you going to do?" We don't believe in 
that, and — 

18 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: I've been tracking your 

enforcement . 

They have one of the worst enforcement records of any 
board at all. In fact, it's zilch. It's negative. In terms of 
activity over the years, it's just been bad. 

And I admire your trying to clean up the people who 
aren't licensed. That's not my point. 

My point was, they should be required to take the 
initial examination if they've been out five years. That's my 
point. 



10 

n 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 



20 
21 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



28 



1 MS. BARNETT: Absolutely. We absolutely agree. 

:i 

2 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: You're giving them a special 

3 examination. I have the letter here where you -- 

4 MS. BARNETT: Senator, that's true, too. 

5 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Okay, you won't argue about 

6 that . 

7 MS. BARNETT: No, I'm not going to argue. 

8 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Special exam. It's not the old 

9 tough exam. 
ii 

10 Let me tell you, if my license lapses under the State 

11 Bar, they've got a real kicker. I have to go back and pass the 

12 State Bar to practice. 

13 MS. BARNETT: Well, actually, during our committee 

14 meetings, and it isn't reflected in our normal minutes, but 

15 discussion surrounding the quote/unquote "new exam" would be 

16 that we would want it to be tougher and up to the standards of a 

17 practicing acupuncturist, not a new exam. 



18 






But, we are -- we are still looking at that 



19 situation. We haven't come to the end of our — the process, 

20 where February 1st, we know how many people we're talking about. 
I mean, we haven't discussed it because we don't do that unless 
it's — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Can you refresh me once again as 
to why the exam is a different exam? Senator Boatwright 



21 

22 
23 
24 



indicates that the exam for those who have either gotten the 
26 grace period or the amnesty is a somewhat different exam. 
- 7 Doctor. 



29 



l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



DR. CHEN: Yes, your Honor. 

The situation, allow me to report it to you, is, 
according to the law and regulation created by the Senate of the 
State of California, and for Acupuncture Committee, that when a 
person's license lapses, we do have couple choice here. 

Number one choice is, if they can appear in front of 
i the committee, if we think — by law. The law say. It's not 
what I say. The law say if they appear in front of the 
committee, the committee thinks that there's some kind of reason 
or whatever, we can grant there be a license back, number one. 

Number two, we can go ahead and lapse their license 
jand re-take examination. 

Number three, we can concede it case-by-case 

J 

situation. 

In this particular situation, and I would like to 
|i point out, there were 200 and some people; that we are not 
dealing with one person, or a person that -- who any one of us 

on the committee owes him a favor, or owe her a favor. I don't 

j 

even -- none of us even know the person. Is just the kind of 
know, but not buddy, or whatever, together. 

So in this kind of situation, we did request and try 

to ask for her to do the continuing education, and even try to 

i 
take the examination, which will be controlled by Central 

Testing Unit to set it up to make sure that this person's 
i 
qualified. 

Maybe we did that, something is not quite right to 

Senator — honorable Senator Boatwright ' s standard, which we 



30 



9 
10 
11 



16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 






1 should, maybe, just tell her, say, "You should take the 

2 examination all the way." 

3 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: I wrote you a letter to that 

4 effect, Doctor, before you did, your November meeting, in which 
I 

you rejected my opinion. I have a copy of that if you want me 

6 to read it. 

7 DR. CHEN: No, no, no. 
SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Did I not? 
DR. CHEN: No, your Honor. I don't reject your 

opinion. I don't have the guts to do that. 

It's just the decision of the committee. As the 

12 Chairperson, I carry it out. And I will take the full 

13 responsibility. 

14 And with your permission, I would like to point out, 

15 this person is not somebody — I mean, all these licensees 
already has license; is, they already took their examination. 
They already had practiced many, many years. And most of them 
does not have any case against them. 

Maybe we should still tell them to take the 
examination, but at the time, we conceded it would take more 
time and money. So, we want to see a little bit more. See the 

22 person can somewhat match the standard or not. 

23 If they cannot match the standard, I guarantee you 

24 that they are going to take a full examination again. 

25 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Well, let's let the Committee 
here know what the examination is that you keep referring to. 

I have a letter here from you, dated December 9, and 

28 



31 



1 you state: 

2 "The competency examination will be 

3 developed by the Department of Consumer 

4 Affairs, Central Testing Unit, two expert 

5 examiners who are involved in our testing 

6 process, and by the A.C.'s Executive 

7 Officer. This competency examination will 

8 be at a level expected for someone with 

9 years of practice." 

10 It doesn't say any number of years, just "years of practice." 

11 My point to you was, the initial examination is a 

12 standard examination, a test, that has been developed and is 

I 

13 widely used as a test to test the competency of people to 

practice acupuncture. 

There is no standard that you set forth in your 

16 letter setting forth what this competency exam is. I'd like to 

17 see it. Maybe I could pass it, never having studied a moment of 

18 medicine. I don't know. I'd like to see it. 

p 

19 And I have a series of questions with respect to the 

20 cost, like, who's going to pay for this? Is it going to come 

21 out of your general fund, since I understand you're asking for a 
,fee increase bill that comes before my committee? Are you 

asking the other people who are licensed to pay for these 
people, to subsidize them? 

So, I've got a series of questions here that have 
been passed out to the members, and I'll pass them out to you. 
And at the next hearing, I would like to have an answer to these 



14 
15 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



I' 



32 



1 cost questions about who's paying for this, how much it costs, 

2 all those kinds of things. 

J DR. CHEN: Absolutely, your Honor. We will for sure 

to answer all those questions. 

5 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 

6 Senator Petris has a question. 
SENATOR PETRIS: Just briefly. 



8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



I appreciate Senator Boatwright ' s appearance here as 
the guardian of this whole area of all the professions. 

I would recommend to the committee that you take a 
good look at the State Bar procedure and deadline, and consider 
adopting something — 

MS. EMERSON: We already have. 

SENATOR PETRIS: — like that. You already have? 

MS. EMERSON: It's in the works. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And the second thing is that at our 
next meeting, when we go into this further, I'd like to find out 
where the monitoring broke down. I don't understand how a 
person under your jurisdiction can stay out without a license 
for five years, and have nobody even know about it. That just 
seems to me to be very bad internal administration. 

MS. BARNETT: We have an internal audit, if you'd 
like to see it, from the time before we were there with the old 
administration and the old Executive Officer. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I'm thinking of the time up to 
the discovery. 

MS. BARNETT: That's right. That's what we would 



10 



33 



1 i like to know. 

2 SENATOR PETRIS: There's just apparently a total lack 
J j of monitoring by the staff. 

4 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Emerson, did you want to say 
I 

5 something? 

6 MS. EMERSON: Well, two things, and I think they've 

7 been touched on. 

8 One is, we couldn't agree with Senator Boatwright 
more. We have been working on and still are really tightening 
up. We feel that five years is too long for a lapsed license. 



•,< 



11 There's legislation in the works to shorten that time period. 

12 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: To three years. 

13 MS. EMERSON: Well, I've recommended two. The 
j 

1 4 j Executive Committee of our committee has recommended two years 

15 as opposed to three. 

16 We also have been working with the other Allied 

17 Health boards. We'd like to streamline some of these deadlines 

18 and do something similar to what you're talking about. We've 

19 1 looked at attorneys and others . 

20 We would all really like to do this. Unfortunately, 

21 you all work in government; you know it doesn't happen with good 
intention in five minutes. It takes some time to do. 

23 It's in the works . We ' re working on this . 

In addition, we have not decided on the test yet. 



24 



When the applications come in, when we interview them, and make 
sure that their continuing education is properly up to snuff, et 



27 



cetera, at that time a decision will be made whether to do a 



34 



1 special test or to go through the regular test, which is for 

2 beginning acupuncturists. 

3 In addition, any monies for a special test would be 

4 paid by the people taking the test. It would not come from our 

5 funds; it would not come from your funds. 

5 So, I just wanted to answer those two points. 

7 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

8 Senator Ayala, and then Dr. Chen. 

9 SENATOR AYALA: Yes. 

10 I didn't quite understand Senator Boatwright ' s 

suggestion that we allow them to have a three-year lapse? 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: No, that's what they're 
proposing. 

MS. EMERSON: No, that's — right now, the law reads 
that we can't do anything until after five years — 

SENATOR AYALA: Is that right? 

MS. EMERSON: — which we think is absolutely 
appalling. I think anything more than 60 days is appalling. 



12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 



19 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: The bill that has been -- and I 



20 



had a meeting yesterday with Ann Chen and Jim Conran — they 



21 :told me that you were proposing three years, the Board was 



22 



proposing three years. 



23 MS. EMERSON: That was not the recommendation from 



24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



;our committee. Two years was our recommendation. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a letter here, dated the 14th 

of January. It's from the Department of Motor Vehicles, 

I 
advising me that my birthday was coming up — 



35 



1 MS. EMERSON: I agree with you. 

1 SENATOR AYALA: — and I must renew my license by 

3 that day. 

4 And I have exams in my mind, because I went 
ij 

5 downstairs this morning, and I took the test to renew my 

6 ;| license. 

7 They didn't give me one day of lapsing my license. 

8 They would take my license away, and I couldn't drive. And if I 

9 did, illegally, I would be penalized. 
How is it that these people were out five years and 



10 



21 
22 
23 
24 



11 you didn't even know about it? 



12 MS. EMERSON: That's the way the law reads. 

i 

13 MS. TU: That's the way it was administered. 

14 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Dr. Ying Tu, you want to say 

15 something? 

16 MS. EMERSON: We would be very happy to have it that 

17 way. 

18 MS. TU: I felt that I really want to thank Senator 

19 Boatwright for pointing out the inadequacy of the laws that are 

20 currently existing with the acupuncture regulations. 



And as a new committee member, and working on it for 
the past ten months, I think all of us have realized how 
inadequate it was to govern this. And we are really working 
very hard to regulate and change the laws. 



And I feel that, as a standard, as you are, we were 

also very astounded to find that there were actually 229. At 

; first we had the number like 500 people that have lapsed their 

28 



8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 



20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



36 



1 license for five years. 

2 And this really shows the importance and justifies 
our decision to dismiss the former administrator that we had on 

4 the board, to show that, you know, things were not being kept. 
The records were in disarray, and we did not have any means to 
find out who or — who was practicing out there, and whether — 
how their license were. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: In my particular case here, 
Department of Motor Vehicles, I didn't get a single day after it 
was expired. And you folks are dealing with health. And what's 
more important than your health? Why should you allow someone 

14 whose license lapsed to practice one hour after it lapses? 

15 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Dr. Chen then Ms. Emerson. 

16 DR. CHEN: Yes, your Honor, and also honorable 

17 Senators. 

18 The situation is this. We do not collect renewal 

19 fee. Acupuncture Committee does not collect that. It's 
collected by State of California, and different department 
collects that. 

When they collect that, usually it takes quite a long 
time to let — for them to notify us, say, "We did not collect 
So-and-so. " 

So in this kind of situation, sometimes take year, 

■I 
one year, two years or so. 

But we already did something to try to avoid this 



37 



1 kind of problem to occur again, as to send an internal memo and 
bring it up inside department and inside State of California's 

3 communication, that we request that every six months, we would 

4 like to have a list that shows which ones, so-and-so, did not 

5 pay. And this did occur some problem, create some problem. 

6 ij And that's the reason some of the people, when they 

lapsed for five years, and some of them even — we found some of 

8 the records, which is not keeping by us, has not paid or has 

9 paid, does not even have the record to track — to track all the 

10 way back. 

11 And I'm not saying this as an excuse. Should they 

12 lapse? No. It's saying just we should correct it, and we have 

13 noticing that, and we want to correct the problem. 

14 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Emerson, then Senator Beverly 

15 has a question. 

16 MS. EMERSON: I'm really excited about what's 

17 happening here, because we're in agreement. And you all are the 
ones that make the laws, and you're Republicans and Democrats, 
as are we, and we're public members and doctors. 

We would love to have it exactly like the DMV. We 
would give nothing better than to have major penalties, and have 
it in a short period of time. 

Pass the law. We'll enforce it. We'd be happy to. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

25 Senator Beverly. 

26 SENATOR BEVERLY: There was reference earlier by 
Ms. Barnett or somebody about counsel to the committee. 

28 



18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 



38 



1 Who is the counsel to your — 

2 MS. BARNETT: Donald Chang. 

3 SENATOR BEVERLY: Is that an Attorney General or — 

4 MS. BARNETT: Department of Consumer Affairs. He's 
our legal counsel for the committee. He sits in on all of our 

6 meetings. 

7 SENATOR BEVERLY: And is he from the Attorney 

8 General's Office? 

9 MS. BARNETT: Department of Consumer Affairs, sir. 
SENATOR BEVERLY: Did you act with his advice? 
MS. BARNETT: Oh, yes, sir. 
SENATOR BEVERLY: And you were told what you were 

doing you could lawfully do? 

MS. BARNETT: Absolutely. 

15 In fact, if I might add, this committee, because we 

16 are new, looked to Don for pretty much everything, you know. We 

17 



10 
11 

12 
13 
14 



state how we feel, but in the process of how we go about 

18 directing our changes — 

19 SENATOR BEVERLY: I'm not saying you did the right 
thing policy-wise, perhaps, but I wanted to clear up the legal 

21 question. 

22 Thanks . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Boatwright is recommending 
to the Committee -- Senator Boatwright ' s not a Member of the 
Committee, but his position is one that oversees the subject 
matter of — 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: And the budget, too. 



24 
25 
26 
27 



39 



1 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — and the budget also that you 

deal with — so he is recommending to the Committee that we put 
it over until your next meeting, at which time we can judge who 

4 of these people who were given this amnesty or leeway, so we can 
adjudge the quantity and the quality. 

6 So, my recommendation would be to do that. That will 

also give you a chance to answer Senator Boatwright ' s questions, 
so we can sort of narrow the focus of this confirmation hearing. 
Senator Boatwright has come up with eleven questions, and it'll 
give you a chance to answer those, and we will have a meeting in 
two weeks . 

You're meeting next week, so I think that would be a 

13 conflict. 

14 MS. MICHEL: On all of them except for Dr. Chen, that 
15 



works out. Dr. Chen's time runs out February 14th. That's two 
weeks from next Wednesday. 

MS. BARNETT: Senator, do you meet on the 3rd? We're 
prepared to come back during the 3rd. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Oh, you are prepared to come back 
then? 

21 MS. BARNETT: We have a break period in the daytime. 

We'd be glad to. We'll all be in Sacramento, and it won't cost 
any additional money. 
24 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: And you feel we'd have all the 

necessary information by that time? 

MS. BARNETT: I believe so. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Okay, that's better then. 



16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



22 
23 



25 
26 



27 
2S 



40 



1 I think, Doctor, you would still be within the time 

2 frame, but it would be kind of quick. 

3 DR. CHEN: Thank you. 

4 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll set it over until next week, 

5 on the 3rd in the afternoon; at 1:30 we meet. 

6 And to narrow the hearing to Senator Boatwright ' s 
questions. Also a discussion of those people who will have been 

8 at that point granted amnesty; numbers in terms of quantity and 

9 qualitatively how much in offense they were as far as breaking 
the strict renewals of their licenses. 

So, why don't we put it over until the 3rd, next 
week, and we'll see you all then. And hopefully, I think we can 



10 

n 

12 



13 come to a vote at that time. 

14 Thank you, Senator Boatwright, as well. 

15 



16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



Members . 



SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
3:17 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



41 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this q?S / day of January, 1993. 




2VELYN J. MIZAK 
Shorthand Reporter 



216-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.00 per copy 
plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

11 00 J Street, Room B- 15 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 216-R when ordering. 



\oo 



<?3 

.5 






/> 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1993 
2:13 P.M. 



uOCUMEN io DEBT. 

fcB?2l993 



HAN FRANCISCO 

- - • r»w 



217-R 






SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1993 
2:13 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



1 ' 

2 

|l 

3 j 

4 ij 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

21 

ii 
22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



11 

APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI, Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

MEMBERS ABSENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

MARY BARNETT, Member 
Acupuncture Committee 

DAVID Y.C. CHEN, O.M.D., Member 
Acupuncture Committee 

JANE M. EMERSON, Member 
Acupuncture Committee 

MARGUERITE HUNG, O.M.D., Member 
Acupuncture Committee 

ANGELA YING TU, Member 
Acupuncture Committee 

JEANNE TUMANJAN, Member 
Acupuncture Committee 

SENATOR DANIEL BOATWRIGHT, Chair 
Senate Busiess & Professions Committee 

YVONNE W. LARSEN, Member 
State Board of Education 



I 



111 
APPEARANCES ( Continued) 



FRANK R. LIGHT, Member 

2 State Board of Education 

3 IRENE C. CHENG, Member 
State Board of Education 

4 

S. STEPHEN NAKASHIMA, Member 

The Regents of the University of California 

6 SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP 

7 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



INDEX 



IV 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



Page 

Proceeding 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 

ACUPUNCTURE COMMITTEE [Sitting as a Panel]: 

DAVID Y.C.CHEN, O.M.D., Chair 1 

ANGELA YING TU, Member 1 

MARGUERITE HUNG, O.M.D., Member 1 

MARY JANE BARNETT, Member 1 

JANE M. EMERSON, Member 1 

JEANNE TUMANJAN, Member 1 

i 

Statements by DR. CHEN re: 

Concerns of SENATOR BOATWRIGHT 1 

i 

Action Taken during Committee Meeting ... 1 

Statements by SENATOR BOATWRIGHT re: 

Committee ' s Unanimous Vote to Require 

Lapsed Licensees to Take Regular Exam ... 2 

Satisfied that Acupuncture Committee 
Understands Need to Protect Public .... 3 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Action to Keep Better Track of Licensees .... 3 

Requirement for Licensees to Apprise 

Acupuncture Committee of Any Change of 

Address 4 

Means of Monitoring in Future 4 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Number of Applications to Take Exam 6 

Suspension of Remainder of Lapsed Licensees . . 6 



28 



INDEX (Continued) 
l 

Statements by SENATOR BOATWRIGHT re: 

2 ;| 

Proposal to Strengthen Enforcement Activities . 8 

3 

Proposal to Take away from Boards the 

4 Discretion to Grant Alternatives to Tests ... 8 

5 Need to Make All Board and Commissions More 
Responsive to Consumer rather than Licensees . . 9 



Statements of Appreciation by DR. CHEN 9 

Questions of DR. CHEN by SENATOR PETRIS re: 



Location of International Acupuncture 
9 University and Research Institute 10 

10 Year Degree Was Obtained 10 

11 j, Motion to Confirm All Six Appointees 10 

12 Committee Action 11 

13 YVONNE LARSEN, Member 

State Board of Education 11 

14 

15 

16 

Ideas for Streamlining Complex 

17 Education Codes 13 

18 Motion to Confirm 15 



Background and Experience 11 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 



Committee Action 15 

FRANK LIGHT, Member 

State Board of Education 16 

Background and Experience 16 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 



19 

20 

21 
22 

23 

Function of County Superintendents of 

24 Schools 17 

25 Need to Streamline Bureaucracy 18 

26 Motion to Confirm 19 

Committee Action 20 

28 



VI 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



INDEX (Continued) 

IRENE CHENG, Member 

State Board of Education 20 

Background and Experience 20 

Question by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Where Currently Studying 21 

Motion to Confirm 21 

Committee Action 22 

S. STEPHEN NAKASHIMA, Member 

Board of Regents 

University of California 22 

Background and Experience 22 

Introduction and Statement of Support 

by SENATOR REBECCA MORGAN 25 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Ability to Work One's Way through 

the University with Today's Fees 27 

Tell Governor that University Fees 

Are Too High 29 

Need for Regents to Advise Governor .... 29 

Shortchanging Entire Generation 30 

Need to Let Governor Know It ' s Time to 

Re-visit Tax Increases 32 

Currently Taxing Students 34 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Prevalence of Mexican-Americans while 

Growing up in Fresno County 34 

Justification for Giving Retiring 

President Gardner Large Retirement Package 

While Increasing Student Fees 35 

Is Same Method Still in Place for Future 

University Presidents 37 



Vll 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 



25 
26 
27 
28 



INDEX (Continued) 

Were Set Aside Funds Comprised of Tax Dollars . 37 

Response by SENATOR MORGAN re: 

Call to MR. NAKASHIMA at the Time 

Issue First Came Up 38 

Money Had Come from Many Sources ... 38 

No Use of General Fund Dollars .... 38 

Could Funds Have Been Used for Other Activities 39 

Possibility that Same Thing Could Happen Again 39 

Statements by SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP re: 

Source of Funds and Ability to Use Them for 

Many Purposes 40 

Quote of REGENT HALLISEY from Transcript 

of April 20, 1992 Regents Meeting 40 

Importance of Vesting Date 42 

Questions by SENATOR KOPP re: 

Memory Refreshed as to What REGENT HALLISEY 

Said at April 20, 1992 Meeting 46 

Receipt of Document Entitled, "SEVERANCE 

PACKAGE OF PRESIDENT GARDNER", Prepared by 

REGENT HALLISEY 46 

Statement in Support of Motion to Re-affirm 
Retirement Package 47 

Quote of Entire Statement 47 

Use of Word "Trash" to Describe Document 
Prepared by REGENT HALLISEY 47 

Request to Identify Incorrect Parts of 

Document 48 

Accuracy of Dollar Amount for 

Administrative Leave 48 

Accuracy of Figures for NDIP Plans .... 49 

Accuracy of Various Figures in Document . . 49 



1 



14 



15 I 



16 



26 

27 
28 



Vlll 
INDEX (Continued) 



Where Is Written Contract Constituting Legal 

2 Obligation 50 

3 Knowledge of President Gardner's Contract 50 

4 Statements by SENATOR KOPP re: 

5 Cannot Vote to Confirm Appointee 50 

6 Regents Have Duty of Trustees 50 

7 Characterization of Document as "Trash" 

Is Unacceptable 50 



Offended by Actions of REGENT BAGLEY 51 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 



9 i 

i] 

10 

i Regents Were Running University Like a 

11 Big Business 52 

12 Usual Retirement Packages for CEOs .... 52 

13 Worst Part Was Secrecy 53 

Statements by SENATOR KOPP re: 



Quote from April 20, 1992 Transcript 

of Remarks of SENATOR KOPP 53 



Compensation Package Based upon 
17 Faulty Premise 54 



Request that Document Prepared by REGENT 

HALLISEY Be Attached to Transcript 55 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 



18 

19 i 
20 

Concern that Appointments Reflect the 

21 Population in General 55 

22 1974 Amendment to California Constitution 
Requiring Governor to Confer with Advisory 

23 I Committee before Appointing Regents 55 

24 i Statement by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 



25 Need to Send Letter to Governor regarding 
Use of Advisory Committee in All Future 
Appointments to Board of Regents 56 



IX 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



INDEX ( Continued 1 

Request that Nominee Take Message to Governor . 57 

Question by SENATOR BEVERLY re: 

Final Vote on President Gardner's Retirement 

Package 58 

Question of SENATOR KOPP by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Lack of Binding Contract 58 

Granting of Administrative Leave Critical ... 59 

Question by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Renegotiation of Any Contracts 59 

1 

Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Intent to Vote for Confirmation 59 

Enormity of Retirement and Salary Package Is 
Incomprehensible 60 

University Has Been Damaged by Action of 

Regents 60 

ii 

Motion to Confirm 61 

Committee Action 62 

Termination of Proceedings 62 

Certificate of Reporter 63 

"SEVERANCE PACKAGE OF PRESIDENT GARDNER" 64 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
1 

— OoOoo — 

2 

i CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We now have the members of the 

3 jj 

Acupuncture Committee: Mary Barnett, David Y.C. Chen, Jane M. 

4 

Emerson, Marguerite Hung, Angela Ying Tu, and Jeanne Tumanjan. 
And of course, Senator Boatwright has joined us for 
this hearing. 

7 : 

We had the Acupuncture Committee up last week, and we 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



asked for some information specifically regarding Senator 

< Boatwright ' s observations that he was concerned that amnesty to 

.i 

some acupuncturists who had allowed their license to lapse be 
not a special favor to those acupuncturists. 

Mr. Chair, would you like to speak to the issue? I 
think you were going to speak as to what was going to happen at 
your meeting today, frankly. 

DR. CHEN: Yes, honorable Chairperson, and honorable 
Senators , and honorable Senator Boatwright . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: This is Dr. Chen, the Chair of the 
Acupuncture Committee . 

DR. CHEN: Thank you so much. My name is David Chen, 
Chairperson of the Acupuncture Committee. 

We really appreciate Senator Boatwright ' s concerns, 
so we immediately instructed our office to prepare all the 
information as much as we can to forward to Senator Boatwright 

jj and to answer according to the law and his instructions . 

i| 

Furthermore, that this morning, we did have a full 

committee meeting. And the committee meeting decides that any 



1 ' licensee lapsed shall take the practical examination if they 

2 want to continue their license to practice. 

ji 

J Not only that. Furthermore, they shall prove 

4 themselves that they do have 40 hours of continuing education 

5 required by law and also established by State of California 

6 Senate. They furthermore shall prove that they do not have any 
criminal record or any other kind of wrong doing, or any kind of 

8 accusation against them. 

9 So, that's this situation so far, and we are here to 

10 listen to Senator Boatwright ' s instruction to follow that. And 

11 we fully understand that we serve for the people, and we 

12 appreciate the instruction from Senator Boatwright to instruct 

13 for us the right direction on that. 

14 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Dr. Chen. 

15 Senator Boatwright. 

16 SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

17 Members, and Dr. Chen. 
The committee did this morning — you may recall that 

I read the passage where a special examination was going to be 
developed. That was set aside this morning, and the committee 
voted unanimously, it's my understanding, to require these 
people with the five-year lapsed license to take the regular 



18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



23 examination this June. 

24 I think that's appropriate. I think that's the way 
25 



26 

27 
28 



it should have been done, and I am very satisfied. 

It's not that I'm just picking on the Acupuncture 
Committee. I think you're familiar with my activities in the 



I! 

1 hearings we had with the Medical Board itself. Out of those 

i] 

hearings and discussions with Mr. Conran and Ann Sheehan, we, I 
think, have made some great strides. I think Dixon Arnett, at 

4 least from my point of view, is a substantial improvement over 

5 the prior executive officer. 

6 So, I'm pleased with what the Acupuncture Committee 
did this morning. There were eight people out of the 229 lapsed 
licenses that they could find that returned applications to take 
the examination, and I'm satisfied that the Acupuncture 

10 Committee understands the need that the people who do practice 

11 acupuncture are in a medical profession and must have the very 

12 highest standards that the State of California can impose upon 

13 these people to protect the public. 

14 So, I am satisfied with what the committee did this 

15 morning, and it's, I think, a big step in restoring my 

16 confidence, at least, in this board. 

17 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris, then Senator 

18 Ayala. 

19 Thank you, Senator Boatwright. 

20 SENATOR PETRIS: Is the board going to take steps to 

21 keep better track of the licensees? I understand they had a lot 
of difficulty trying to find them. Didn't have the addresses. 

23 Is that being taken care of? 

24 DR. CHEN: Yes, your honor. It has been taken — I 
will not say taken care of. It's in the process of trying to 



26 

27 
28 



taking care of by doing couple things. 

Number one, we try to even go through every Yellow 



1 Pages, try to — every district, try to check on their name, and 
try to — because a lot of mail, we could not forward to the 

3 licensees. 

4 Number two, we did ask the help with three biggest 
acupuncture organizations in the State of California. It's a 

6 public record, so we released that and asked them to help us on 

7 that . 

8 Number three, we referred to ask the Association to 
send our brochure/bulletin out on doing continuing education 
lectures. Asked them to go ahead, try to announce it, and try 
to get hold of the licensees, and to avoid it from happening. 

And furthermore, we also request from State of 
California, which we did it a couple months ago, that gave this 
committee an internal audit, which is nothing — internal audit 

15 has nothing to do with us. It's not under our control. And 

16 give us guidance and find out is there any other way, or 

17 mistake, not except that [sic], to improve this committee, your 
honor. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do the rules require the licensee to 
keep the board informed of their address, their current address? 

MS. BARNETT: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that something new? 

MS. BARNETT: No, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's always been there? 

MS. BARNETT: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How are we going to monitor this in 
the future? What changes are going to be made? 



19 
20 
21 
22 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



It seems to me one of the problems we learned about 
last time was that these things are lapsing, and nobody knows 
they're lapsing. How do you correct that? 

DR. CHEN: Your honor, what we're trying to do is, we 
will keep very thorough records to make sure we know they lapse. 
When they lapse, what we did one thing is, we now have their 
Social Security numbers, which before the law did not require 
Social Security numbers. So, from Social Security number we try 
to get hooked up with the line from, like, Franchise Tax Board, 
whatsoever. Try to get the information from their Social 
Security number their mailing address. 

Lot of time is unfortunate when licensees they change 
their address, they do not notify us. But with the Social 
Security numbers here, I'm pretty sure that we can erase at 
least half of that. For sure, some of them, less than half, if 
they insist they want to lapse, that's not — we can insist — I 
mean, we can force that. 

But there's also one thing is up. We are presenting 
to the State of California Senate and asking for the changes of 
regulations regarding Acupuncture Committee. For example, like 
five years. Before, you wait five years to lapse. Right now 
we're asking your permission to change it to three years. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That was mentioned last week. I 
understand that. 

If you're lapsed for one year, it's an oversight, 
perhaps. You pay it up and you're okay. There's no big problem 
there; is there? 



10 

11 



1 But when you get as long as five, then you've got a 

question of whether they're really keeping up with the knowledge 

3 of the state of the art; right? That's a lot more serious. 

4 Okay, thank you. 

5 DR. CHEN: Thank you so much, Senator. 

6 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Ayala. 

7 SENATOR AYALA: Senator Boatwright, did you indicate 

8 that they had received eight applications to take the exam out 

9 of how many that had lapsed? 
SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Well, they were able to contact, 

I believe, with letters 229. There were more that lapsed, but 

12 that's the number that they could actually contact of the lapsed 

13 licenses. So, eight out of 229 made application to take the 

14 examination. 

15 SENATOR AYALA: So what happens to the 221 that did 

16 not respond? Are their licenses suspended; they can no longer 
practice until they pass the exam? Is that it? 

MS. EMERSON: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: As of when? The day that the exam is 
taken, or as of now? When is that taking place? 

MS. BARNETT: Senator, if I might address that. 

22 Their license has lapsed. We duly informed them of 

23 that. 
The only way they could reinstate their license at 

any time would be to prove -- show proof of continuing education 
all along, the 40 hours per year, and at this point, take the 
examination. 



17 

18 
19 
20 
21 



24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



1 SENATOR AYALA: My understanding is that their 



2 



10 
!1 
12 
13 



17 
18 
19 
20 



~> 



24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



license has lapsed, but they were still practicing. 



3 MS. BARNETT: Well, that is something we would like 

4 to determine. We have sent many letters. We are still — we 

5 feel , and we spoke about this at the Education Committee 

6 yesterday, we feel that of these ones we have not heard from, 
the population of those acupuncturists is being studied. A 

8 great many of them are over 65. 

9 We still feel the need to spot check if we have a 
correct address. And that's the problem in many of them, 
because they were undeliverable. If we can find an address, to 
do some spot checking to see whether they are, indeed, 
practicing. 

14 SENATOR AYALA: But these folks were in violation of 

15 the law; they're practicing without a license. 

16 MS. BARNETT: Absolutely. 
SENATOR AYALA: And as of the day they take the exam, 

only those of the eight that pass the exam can practice. No one 
else can, those that have forfeited their license over the 
years . 

21 MS. BARNETT: That's correct. 

2 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

DR. CHEN: May I add one more thing, honorable 
Senator. 

Not only that, actually we're all notifying them. A 
lot of letters are returned that they are notified officially 
many, many months ago. They are not supposed to practice any 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



more. Their license lapsed. 

And further more, there's about 50 percent of the 
letter return back to us. So, we still try to enforce that and 
go on that . 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, we're proposing, 

the Business and Professions Committee will be hearing 

legislation this year to do several things with respect to not 

only the Acupuncture Committee, but other committees, to 
I 
strengthen their enforcement activities. That's been the 

laxity, certainly, of all of the medical fields in California. 

And you just read in the paper about the Medical 
Board, the shredding of documents. Those kind of things. 
Actually, illegal activities. 

One of the things we're going to do, I believe — and 
Senator Ayala is on the Committee now — is to take away from 
the boards the discretion when a person has a totally lapsed 
license, like five years, to take away the authority of the 
various boards to grant alternatives to testing. I think the 
feeling is, those people have been out of the practice so long, 
they should be tested as they're doing now with these people. 
So, basically it will be a new examination. Just like if your 

license lapsed with the State Bar, after a period of time you 

j 
have to take the State Bar again. And we believe that same 

proficiency requirement should be extended to all the boards, 

including the Acupuncture Committee. 

So, there's a lot of work to be done to make all of 



1 the boards and commission, I think, more responsive to the 
people, the consumer, rather than to the people they license. 

3 So, thank you for your consideration. I appreciate 

4 it. 

5 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator Boatwright. 

6 Yes, Doctor. 

7 DR. CHEN: Honorable Senator Boatwright, I would like 

8 to mention one thing is, as a public record to this Committee, 
and to the audience, that Senator Boatwright is one of the most 
knowledgeable person that really knows about especially the 
board functions, and we really appreciate that he try to help us 
to get on our feet, work on. 

Actually, this has been a good question that — among 
different boards for a long time, that five years lapse, and I 
think the best way is — should be like Senator Boatwright 
mentioned, that it will be just automatic lapse completely, and 
change that. And if we change it as a law by the Senate of 
State of California, changing it to a law, then our Medical 

19 Board will just go ahead, carry it out, so we don't have to go 

20 through all kind of hassles trying to find them. If in five 

21 years they don't want to pay, or three years, whatsoever, then 
they re-take the examination. Let them do it. 

And which is, we really appreciate. I have no 
knowledge that Senator Boatwright is going to bring up this, but 
this is one of the best, best things that really will help us a 
lot to carry out the law and to serve the public better on that. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



10 

II 

12 



10 



1 DR. CHEN: Thank you. 

2 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

3 SENATOR PETRIS: I'm just curious, Dr. Chen. Where 

4 is the International Acupuncture University and Research 

5 Institute? Where is that located? 

6 DR. CHEN: It's in Taiwan, your honor. 

SENATOR PETRIS: When did you get your degree there? 

8 DR. CHEN: That was in 1976. 

9 SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there any opposition to the 

confirmation of any member to the Acupuncture Committee? 

Then do I hear a motion to confirm the five members 

13 of the committee — six members? 

14 SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation of 

15 six and each of them. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Senator Beverly moves that we 

confirm all six. That would be Dr. Chen, Dr. David Chen, Jane 
Emerson, Marguerite Hung, Angela Ying Tu, and Jeanne Tumanjan, 

19 and Mary Barnett. 

20 Secretary will call the roll. 

21 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 
SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 
SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 
SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



~1 



11 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Senator Roberti . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation's recommended to the Floor. 

I think this has been very good. Thank you, Senator 
Boatwright, and thank the members of the committee. I think 
we've all learned a little bit more. 

Next nomination is that of Yvonne Larsen, Member of 
the State Board of Education. 

Hello, Ms. Larsen. We'll ask you what we ask all the 
Governor's appointees, and that is why you feel that you are 
qualified to assume this position? 

MS. LARSEN: Thank you very much, honorable Senator 
Roberti, Senator Ayala, Senator Beverly, Senator Petris . 

In 1977, I was elected to the Board of the San Diego 
Unified School District, served two terms as President in 1980 
and 1981. In 1981, I heard then-U.S. Secretary of Education, 
Terryl Bell, speak of establishing a National Commission on 
Excellence in Education. Inasmuch as I was going to Washington, 
D.C., I went to call on him, and I lobbied to be appointed to 
that commission, and was appointed as Vice Chair of the National 
Commission on Excellence in Education. 

You may recall, that was the Commission that drafted 
and presented the clarion call to the American people in 1983, 
"A Nation at Risk, the Imperative for Educational Reform". That 
was really the catalyst for much of the reform movement that has 



12 



1 transpired in the last ten years . 

2 For two and a half years following that clarion call, 

3 I served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Education, 

4 conducting workshops, and seminars, and symposiums, and panels 

5 throughout the United States . 

6 In recent years, I have worked within my community 

7 primarily in the area of high-risk children's programs, youth 

8 programs: drug abuse and in pregnancies. As you know, there is 

9 an explosion in much of this within our state, and it is a major 

10 concern. I've also worked in the literacy issue. 

11 Additionally, I am a member of the Ed. Source Board 

12 of Directors, which is a group that clarifies complex 

13 educational issues within the State of California. And I hope 

1 4 that resource is available to you all and helping to give you 

15 some good background on the demographics and all that do take 

16 place within our state. 

1 7 Since my appointment last — the end of last March to 

18 the State Board, I have functioned as a member of the 

19 Administration Committee, of the Fiscal Policy Committee, and of 

20 the Screening Committee. I am serving currently as liaison to 
the California State Summer School for the Arts Program, and as 
liaison to the Governor's Chapter II Advisory Board, which 

23 handles federal funds . 

24 Additionally, I am now serving as a Commissioner to 
the California Post Secondary Education Commission, representing 

26 the State Board. 

27 My goal as a State Board of Education member is to be 

28 



21 



■Y) 



13 



1 a strong advocate for the children of this state, to help — 
have the State Board serve as really that bully pulpit to speak 
for kids. My personal desire is — and a passion that I have ~ 
4 is to work to see that the children within the primary grades, 
or kindergarten through third grade, will get a strong, rigorous 
curriculum. And hopefully, if we address this need as a state, 
this will help us a great deal on the remedial activities down 
the road. 

So, I think California's a bell weather state. As 
these things happen in California, so they happen in the nation. 
And I'd like to be part of some very constructive and positive 
effort to continue California in really a very strong sense of 
accomplishment, and purpose, and progress for our kids. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

I've had a concern recently that much of education is 
way too complex, both administration and finance. And in my own 
school district, it's size. 



6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 



18 The process of education, the decision-making 



19 
20 

21 
22 



process, seems to be removed from the parents and the teachers, 
but especially from parents and from communities. Anyone who 
tries just gets lost in a maze of complexity that makes any 
other agency of our government look simple. 

Do you have any ideas on streamlining? 

MS. LARSEN: Well, I share your concern. The 
Education Code is far too complex and far too restrictive at 
this point in time. Too many regulations. 

I feel we really need to work diligently to establish 



24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



14 



1 more local control and more flexibility within the individual 
districts. Certainly there is such diversity in our state, from 

3 San Diego or San Ysidro to the far northern borders, there are 

4 differences in our demographics, in our diverse population and 

5 all, and I think we need to leave it to the parents and the 

6 community activists to help establish the pattern that their 
school districts should go, certainly within the parameters of 

8 strong educational directives. 

The rigorous education, of course, must be first and 
foremost, but there does need to be an opportunity for the local 
people to have input into how their efforts are projected. 

And I think your effort to look forth at the Los 
Angeles Unified School District certainly is an appropriate one. 
I don't know how it will all turn out, but it certainly needs to 
have some review and some look-see. And I support you in that 
effort. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I was told yesterday in one of our 
Code sections — you talked about complexity of the Codes — we 
have a Code that, if you want to have a private sale to help 
raise money for schools, you can get four waivers a year to do 
that. And if you have the four waivers, you can have private 
people help schools districts, and you can therefore have a food 



10 

n 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



23 sale for everything except popcorn. 

24 Now, this is in our Code. I mean, just an example of 

25 



26 

27 
28 



how ridiculously complex — 

MS. LARSEN: I'm glad you said "ridiculously 
complex. " 



15 



1 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — and unnecessary it's become. 

The popcorn lobby, I didn't know we had one, but evidently at 

3 one point in the legislative life, we had a popcorn lobby. 

4 MS. LARSEN: Probably after the Sneeze Panel. 

5 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That's right. 
I: 

6 So, I want to work with you on that. 
I 

7 Any other questions of the nominee? Is there any 

8 opposition in the audience? 

y Then do I hear a motion? 

10 SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

11 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves confirmation 

12 to the Floor. 



13 Secretary will call the roll. 

14 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

15 SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

16 I SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

17 SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

18 SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

19 SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

20 SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

21 Senator Roberti. 

22 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

23 SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

24 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 

25 ; confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 
- 6 Congratulations . 

27 MS. LARSEN: Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

28 



16 



1 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Our next nominee is Frank Light, 

2 Member of the State Board of Education. 

3 We'll ask you the same question, and that is why you 

4 feel you're qualified to assume this position? 

5 MR. LIGHT: Senator, my background is — I guess my 

6 biggest tie to education is my four children who've come up 

7 through the California system. 

8 My youngest child had a learning disability, and we 

9 were in Michigan for a short period of time, and we were told 

10 that he was mentally handicapped and would never make it. And 

11 through the great California Special Ed. system, he now drives a 

12 bus and is independent in Pleasanton. 

13 For that alone, I think I owe California education a 

14 lot. And I feel very privileged to be a retired personnel that 

15 has the time, and it does take a lot of time to serve on this 

16 State Board of Education. 

17 I've been a member of the Board of Regents of 

18 California Lutheran University. I've been the organizing and 

19 chair of a child — preschool child development center church in 

20 Fresno, one in Dublin, and now I'm very active in a preschool 

21 child development center in San Diego. I have a lot of ties 

22 with education and family and these personal experiences. 
i| 

23 i My business career has been, I started out in 

financial management, and going into general executive 
management. And I think this combination of love for the 



26 

27 
28 



children and the business augment, especially in today's crisis 
that we have in fiscal management in schools, I have something 



17 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



to offer. And I've been honored and privileged to be able to 
lend this experience. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Light. 

Senator Ayala, you have a question? 

SENATOR AYALA: Yes. 

Mr. Light, what, in your opinion, is the function of 
the county schools? We have a superintendent of county schools. 
I haven't served on a school board myself. I'm not sure how 
that relationship takes place between the Superintendent of 
Schools and the local school boards . 

MR. LIGHT: Senator, I'm not so sure I can answer 
that directly, but I can give you a broad opinion that, as I'm 
trying to learn, and going back on my business experience, I 
look at the child, who's the person that we're really trying to 
educate, and I almost always go back to Washington to the 
Secretary of Education, or whatever, and I count all the heads 
between him and the child, and I wonder why we have all these. 

Going back to the earlier conversation about looking 
at the L.A. Unified School District and its vastness, I guess my 
feeling is that bigness and many, many tiers in education is 
bad. I just have that gut feeling. 

SENATOR AYALA: What is the function of the county 
superintendent of schools? 

MR. LIGHT: The function as it now exists, as I 
understand it, is a super service structure over top of the 
districts within their county. And now there's moves to develop 
regional super structures over the counties, somewhere in 



18 



1 between the state structure, and these are things that trouble 
me. 

3 I'm not directly answering your question, but I'm 

4 challenging, sometimes, the need for that structure. 

5 SENATOR AYALA: Do you feel that it's an additional 

6 bureaucracy we have that we could streamline and perhaps even 

7 minimize it? 

8 We have one in every county, and I don't really know 

9 what they do, to be frank with you. The Superintendent is 
elected by the people at large, and the board members are 
appointed — no, they run for board position, too. But we also 
have local governing boards . 

13 MR. LIGHT: Yes. 

14 SENATOR AYALA: And I'm not sure how that really 

15 functions. 

16 MR. LIGHT: I guess I can't tell you exactly how it 

17 functions, either. But I think now that we're taking a fresh 

18 look at the whole structure, these things have to be challenged. 
How logical is it to have these super structures? 

We talked about these mandatory — these mandates 
that come down, and as these mandates trickle down through these 
various super structures and you go visit a school, and you see 
a principal just hog-tied with all the reports and all the 
special petitions, and all the things that she has to do, and 
you wonder if she really has any time to manage the kids. 

So, I guess it's that frustration of that super 
structure and all the mandates that is troublesome. 



19 

20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



19 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



SENATOR AYALA: I just wonder if we need that in 
between, you know, the state Superintendent of Instruction, and 
the local boards. We have like a regional government there, and 
I don't really understand why we need it. 

MR. LIGHT: Oh, a few years ago I had the guts to say 
let's wipe it all out, but I think you have to be a little 
careful on how you address these things. But I think that 
particularly in view of the problems we have now, thinking about 
quality of education, and thinking about restriction of 
resources, we really have to examine the whole structure. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

i 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other questions? 

Is there any opposition to Mr. Light to the State 
Board of Education? 

Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves 
recommendation to the Floor. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 
Senator Roberti. 



20 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



CHAIRMAN ROBERT I: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
|l 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

MR. LIGHT: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next appointment is that of 
Irene Cheng, Member of the State Board of Education, the student 
member. 

Ms. Cheng, we'll ask you what we ask all the 
Governor's appointees, that is why you feel you're qualified to 
jassume this position? 

MS. CHENG: Well, I feel I'm qualified to serve as 
the student member on the State Board mainly for three reasons. 

First of all is the unique selection process which I 
went through in order to get to this point. In order to be 
appointed, I was required to submit a written application, 
including transcripts, essays, and written recommendations. 
Went through two interview with the State Board and with the 
[Governor's Office. And most significant to me, I was elected by 

my peers by the district school board representatives from 

i 

I around the state. 

i 
■i 

The second reason I feel I'm qualified to serve in 
this position is because of my past record of service to my 
school and community. I have a broad range of activities behind 
me which I've participated in throughout my four years of high 
school, and which I feel I've been able to draw upon in dealing 



21 



1 with some of the issues that come before the Board. 

2 And last of all, I feel I'm qualified because of my 

3 personal characteristics. One of the qualities which I've — 

4 I've utilized most, I feel, is the fact that I've taken my 

5 position as student Board member these past six months very 

6 seriously, and I've sought to fulfill my responsibilities as a 
representative of all students in California by weighing each 

8 decision that I vote on very carefully, and taking into 
consideration what's best for the students of California. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good, very well put. 
Where are you currently studying? 
MS. CHENG: I am currently a senior at Mills High 

13 School in Millbrae. 

14 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there any opposition? 

15 Do I hear a motion? 

ji 

16 SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves confirmation 



10 

11 

12 



17 



18 be recommended to the Floor. 

19 Secretary will call the roll. 
ii 

20 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

21 SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

22 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

23 SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 
SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

Senator Roberti. 



24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



22 



l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



1 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

Now we have the appointment of S. Stephen Nakashima, 
Member of the Board of Regents of the University of California. 

Mr. Nakashima, we will ask you what we ask all the 

Governor's appointees, and that is why you feel you're qualified 

•i 

to maintain this position as a Member of the Board of Regents? 

MR. NAKASHIMA: Thank you. 

Members of the Committee, perhaps a little 
ji 
information on my background will help you understand my 

position and the reason why I feel that I can contribute to the 

people of the State of California as a Regent of the University 

of California system. 

I was born and raised in Fresno County, and today I 

asked a friend, in those days, half of my friends were Mexicans. 

But today, I'm afraid I might offend somebody if I were to say 

"Mexican." What is it: Mexicans, or Chicanos, or Hispanics, or 

il 

Latinos? But in my days in growing in Fresno County, my friends 
were Mexican. I worked with them in the fields, picking 
tomatoes, peaches, grapes, and I can pick grapes as well as 
anybody can. 

After attending the K through 12 school system in 

Reedly, I went to the junior college that was known at that time 

jl 

,i 

as Reedly Junior College. I graduated from Reedly Junior 



23 



1 "College, but my education was interrupted by World War II . The 

2 whole family was taken to a camp, relocation center in Poston, 
I' 

3 Arizona, which was located on a Navajo Indian reservation there 

. ji 

near the Colorado River. 

5 I was there for one year. During my one year there, 

I taught a sixth grade class and a course in bookkeeping. 

7 After one year, I was able to relocate to Cleveland, 

'where I worked for a year, year and a half, at which time I 

9 [attended college at night. After that, I went into the 

in I 

,u [[military, then after the military, I went to the University of 

11 California at Berkeley. 

12 My parents had told me that they could not give me 

13 any help, but they would not deny me the opportunity of an 

14 |!education, but I had to obtain it myself. 
ii 

15 After graduating from the University of California in 

16 1948, I was accepted at the Law School at Berkeley, Boalt Hall. 

17 SENATOR MORGAN: I'm sorry to be late. 

I! 

18 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You can continue, then we'll ask 

19 ^Senator Morgan what she thinks of you. 

20 MR. NAKASHIMA: While at Boalt Hall, I was doing 

ii 

71 I' 

cx teaching assistant work at the School of Business and 
22 Accounting. I was told in my second year that if they knew I 
had to work my way through law school, they would not have 
accepted me. I was very happy that they had not found out that 

25 '' 

I was going to work as a teaching assistant. 



26 

27 
28 



After graduating from Boalt Hall — oh, up to this 
time, it's important to note that my parents were unable to do 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



24 



much in the way of economic matters because of the Alien Land 
Law which prevented them from acquiring real property, and the 
fact that they could not obtain citizenship. Those things have 
changed, were changed in the early '50s. 

But this makes me understand the problems of 
minorities. I have told friends that it's very difficult for a 
person to understand the problems of a minority unless that 
person is a minority himself. 

And so the background as far as my education is 
concerned is something that is a product of the schools, the 
public schools of California. I would never have been able to 
go through college had it not been for the University of 

California, because I was able to work for at least my room and 

i| 
board . 

I got married when I was in law school. My wife, 
who's sitting behind me, Sally, worked while I was in law 
school. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: It's good to see you, Mrs. 



19 Nakashima. 

20 MR. NAKASHIMA: And so, she, as the other wives said, 

21 



she should get a P.H.T. That's "Putting Him Through". And I'm 
very grateful for the fact that the University system existed, 
making it possible for me to obtain my education. 

After law school, I received a job in Japan for three 
years with Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. Then I came back 

to California because I wanted my children to be raised in the 

i 

United States. And we have lived in San Jose for — since 1955. 



25 



1 I feel that my background and the fact that among — 

2 with my four children and myself, we have seven degrees from the 

3 University of California system. We have — over 24 of the 29 

4 years of college has been with the University of California 

5 system. I am the product of immigrant parents, but I am also a 

6 product of the University of California system. 

And I asked my friends, is it any wonder that I have 

8 so much pride and feelings for the University of California 

9 system? I want to be -- this system to be the way other 

10 children can elevate themselves . There ' s — there ' s nothing 

11 that would have made it possible for me to be where I am without 

12 the University of California system. 

13 I was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Robert 

14 Noyce, who was a Regent up to 1989. And so, I have served for 

15 approximately three years as a Regent, and I was re-appointed 

16 last March. 

17 And I respectfully request that you ask me questions 

18 as to my background, or my qualifications, or anything that 

19 you'd like to ask. 

20 At this time, Senator Becky Morgan is a very personal 

21 and good friend of mine, and I'd like to have her — I had asked 

22 her to come and introduce me, and to speak on my behalf. 

23 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Mr. 

24 Nakashima. 

25 Senator Morgan. 

26 SENATOR MORGAN: Thank you, and I apologize for not 

27 

being here for the introduction. 

j 

28 : 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 



22 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



26 



1 Mr. Nakashima certainly is one of the most esteemed 

constituents in my district. Well known and highly respected in 

3 San Jose business and legal communities, both for his 

4 professionalism and for his contributions to the communities. 

5 Steve is a man who has suffered at the hands of the 

6 federal government, and been relocated, and yet come back and 

served his community, served in World War II, and then come back 

ii 

8 without bitterness to serve his community again. 

9 I think his experiences, some of which he has 

ij 

explained to you, show the empathy that he can bring for the 

i 
other students of the University of California, and his 

'commitment to the diversity of California, and to making sure 

that students and young people from all races and ethnicities 

are in fact given opportunities. 

I think that's what we've been talking about up here. 

It's what I'm committed to, and I think that there would be no 

finer representative on the Board of Regents, not only for the 

University of California, but for the State of California, than 

19 Steve Nakashima. 

20 I think rather than my saying more than the sincerity 

21 



of my commitment to his candidacy, this would be an opportunity 
to let him respond to any questions. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, thank you, Senator. 

We often ask any Senator who is interested to join 
us. Senator Kopp wishes to join us in the confirmation process. 

First, do any Members of the Committee have a 
question? Senator Petris . 



27 



1 SENATOR PETRIS: I might say that with your record as 

a U.C. student, and all the family members, that's very 
commendable, particularly considering all the circumstances that 

4 we lived through, those of my generation did and know about. 

5 My first question is, if you were in those same 

6 circumstances today, meaning financial, do you think you could 
work your way through school again with the upcoming fees 

8 approaching $3600 a year starting in September? 
ii 

9 MR. NAKASHIMA: Senator Petris, in speaking to 

10 students who call me about the fee increases, I tell them that 

11 I'm — I believe because when I went to Cal., my student 

12 registration fees were $37.50 per semester. They can't believe 

13 it. They just go, "Wowl" 

14 Well, today it's $3,000 per year. You know, that is 

15 difficult for me to understand. Even if I were to work all 

16 summer long, it would be hard for me to come up with the $3,000. 

17 I don't know what to recommend to them, but their 

18 concerns are justified. Their anger is justified. 

19 SENATOR PETRIS: But the fees still continue to go 

20 iup that the Regents have imposed. 

21 MR. NAKASHIMA: I don't know what to tell you, other 
"than to state that due to the budget constraints, you know, 

we've had $225 million knocked off the 1992-93 budget as 
compared to the year before, and the question is, where do we 
get the money? 

Now, each dollar that is charged the student as an 
increase in fees, about one-third, 30%-33%, is set aside for 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



28 



10 



1 student aid to help the students from poor families, or 

backgrounds, or students who have needs. So, that's helpful, 

3 but it does not resolve the problem. 
i 1 

4 I don't know where to turn, other than to say that we 

5 should try to get the Legislature to at least look at it much 

6 more closely. 

1 SENATOR PETRIS: How about the Governor? 

8 MR. NAKASHIMA: I think that's where the first step 

9 should start. 
SENATOR PETRIS: I think both the Legislature and the 



11 Governor need to address this. 



12 >' There's been a lot of criticism in recent years under 

13 governors of both parties, so it's not a partisan attack — the 
• 4 latest comes from Common Cause — that too often the Governor's 
15 appointees come in by virtue of their political activity and the 

'6 fact they've contributed a lot of money to the campaign of the 

ii 

17 Governor. 

18 You were appointed by both Deukmejian and Wilson. 

19 MR. NAKASHIMA: Yes. 

20 SENATOR PETRIS: So you have good standing with both 

21 of those Governors. 

22 MR. NAKASHIMA: Yes. 

23 SENATOR PETRIS: It seems to me that, assuming that 

24 that's the case, we have reports on how much each one of the 

25 Regents contributed to the campaigns . 

26 MR. NAKASHIMA: Yes. 

ji 

27 SENATOR PETRIS: I personally don't have any problem 

28 



10 

II 

12 



29 



1 with that. It looks bad on the outside. It looks like, well, 
they're just a bunch of political hacks, and they're getting 

3 appointed. 

4 I think each one has to be considered on the merits. 
'But I think that could be turned to good advantage. If you're 

6 close enough to the Governor by virtue of your partisan activity 
in the Republican Party, which has been extensive, and your 
contributions, it seems to me you ought to be able to get his 
ear and tell him what you tell us, that those fees are too high. 
That you don't know what to tell the students when they ask you, 
"How are we going to make it?" And find some other way to fund 
the schools without dumping it every year, more and more, on the 

13 backs of students. 

14 There are a lot of us in the Legislature who are 

15 opposed to that. And yet, we don't see any other way out 

il 

16 because alternate sources of income have been rejected by this 

17 Governor. The only obvious source remaining is more taxes. 

18 Nobody likes to vote for an increase in taxes. 

19 But I think if the Regents went to him and said, 
"Look, we recommend this." They come from the business 

21 community, they come from the upper income community. They have 
a lot of friends out there. You in your case, you have clients 
among your law practice; you have clients in your CPA practice. 
And I'll bet you, you could be very influential with the people 
that are close to you in re-visiting this problem and saying, 
"Hey, maybe for a while we ought to try to persuade the Governor 
to rely a little more on taxes and less on student fees." 



22 
23 
24 



26 
27 



30 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



; : 



It's not only that the fees have gone up, but the 
fact that part of the fee is devoted to helping the poorer 
student is off-set by the 15 percent cut in Cal. grants. I 
don't know if it's off -set exactly mathematically. Senator 
Morgan can tell us that. She knows that stuff by heart. She's 
very well informed on that. 

But my point is, we give with one hand, and we take 
away with the other. 

We are shortchanging, and have been for the last few 
years, mostly due to the recession. I mean, if these were 
normal times, we wouldn't even be talking about it. We are 
shortchanging an entire generation, and it's very detrimental to 
the country, to the nation as a whole, which has looked to 
California for so many years as the leading public university in 
the whole country, that graduates these engineers, and 
scientists, and creates Nobel Prize winners in all kinds of 
fields. 

Well, that's not a question. That's just a thinking 
out loud as to some other sources . 

It seems to me that the Regents, who are closely 
associated with the Governor, may have more influence — if you 
agree that we ought to look to that source, as well as all these 
other sources — than Members of the Legislature would have. 

I would urge you and the other Regents to think about 
that. And if you agree that we ought to be pursuing these other 
avenues, to talk to the Governor. 

I don't know, maybe he's so busy, and you're so busy 



. 



31 



1 you've never talked to him since you got appointed. But by 

2 virtue of your acquaintance with him, and closeness, and so 

3 forth, you'd have a better change than most other people. 

4 Have you given that any thought? 

5 MR. NAKASHIMA: Yes, Senator. 

6 Much thought has been given to the questions of how 
we could develop other sources of funds . There ' s one part of 

8 the tax part that I don't particularly agree with the Governor, 

9 and I will state at this time that I will definitely write him a 

10 letter with a copy to you, and I'll express my concerns. 

11 Because to me, I think the education of the young people is 

12 going to determine the future of our country, our state, and the 

13 people of the State of California. And if we don't do something 
i, 

14 about making it available to them at this particular time, we're 

15 going to pay for it tremendously in the future. And I 

16 definitely agree with all that you stated. 

17 Personally, perhaps it might be heresy, as far as I'm 

18 concerned, being a Republican, but I don't mind paying the 

19 taxes. And the reason for it is this: that I am here and in 
i 

20 the position I'm in because taxes paid for my education way back 

21 40-50 years ago. And personally, this is my personal feelings, 
LL and I would not object to any type of tax. 

23 SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I think the Governor needs to 

24 know that. I mean — 

25 MR. NAKASHIMA: I will let him know. 

26 SENATOR PETRIS: — after all, he is a political 

leader. And if he doesn't see anybody behind him supporting a 

28 



32 



1 direction, he's not going to go there. I wouldn't either. None 
of us politicians would. We don't like to be standing out there 

3 all by ourselves. 

4 But if there's enough opinion among the circles that 
he respects and with whom he is associated that says, "Go for 

6 it, Governor," it helps him tremendously. 

7 I don't think it's fair. I'm a frequent critic of 

8 the Governor, but I admire him and I respect him. 

9 I don't expect him to be out there all by himself. 
And he got burned very badly in '91, after being a real hero in 
'90 in his first term. When did it start? I guess it started 
in '91. In his first term, he was a real hero. He faced $14 
billion deficit, none of his doing, and he sat down with the 
Democratic leadership, and they agreed to a program that says, 
"Look, we'll make up half of it with cuts." The Democrats said 

16 that's very painful for us, but we'll do it, if you'll do the 

17 other half with a tax increase. And to his great credit, he did 

18 'it. 

19 Well, his own party turns on him the very next year 

20 and says, "We're not going to support you any more for 
re-election." So, he said no more tax talk. Well, I can 
understand that. Regardless of whether I or the next person 
would do the same thing, that's understandable. 

That's why he needs the support of people like you, 
other members of the Regents, and others who are active out 
there, to say, "Governor, let's re-open that door, and let's 
re-visit it. And I'm willing to pay my share, and these people 



10 

n 

12 
13 
14 
15 



21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



33 



1 are, too," and re-address that. And create a climate for him 

2 that makes it more palatable. 

3 I mean, if you think that's the right way to go. I'm 

4 not trying to impose my view on you, but do you understand what 

5 I'm saying? 

6 MR. NAKASHIMA: Yes. I agree with you. 

7 I will say that it's unfortunate that politics makes 

8 lit necessary at times to, for political expediency purposes, to 

i 

9 put the burden on the shoulders of the young people as far as 
education is concerned. 

And I would do everything in my power to try to 
alleviate some of the burden that ' s been imposed on the students 
up to this time, and which are anticipated in the future, 
depending on the budget problems . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I would urge you to do that, and I'm 
happy to hear you say it. 

Now, the talk always goes back to taxes. 

MR. NAKASHIMA: That's right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: As I said, nobody likes to vote for 
taxes. I'm willing to vote for them, especially in my last 
year. I'm not up for re-election any more, so it's easier for 
me. 

But at any rate, the fact is that when he surveyed 
the field to find all possible sources, he rejected taxes. And 
I understand why. 

But he didn't eliminate taxes. He taxed the 
students. The gigantic fee increases in the last two years are 



10 

li 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



34 



nothing more than a tax on the students. 

MR. NAKASHIMA: A tax on their education. 
SENATOR PETRIS: That's right; that's right. 
So, we can't say, "Well, we solved the problem 
5 without raising taxes." There are a lot of mothers and fathers 
out there who are having a very tough time meeting the bills for 
their kids who are in U.C. or Cal . State, even in the community 
8 colleges now we're rapping them very hard. 

q 

Well, I had some other questions, but I think I've 
taken a little too long. I'll yield to the others. Maybe I'll 
come back to another question later. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Nakashima, I didn't quite 
understand your original statements. You said in your day, 
there was no Chicanos, or Hispanics, or Latinos; they were just 
Mexicans . 

You didn ' t see any Mexican-Americans around? 

MR. NAKASHIMA: Well, we were called Japanese, and 
then later on the term Japanese-Americans came along. And then 
I discussed this with a friend recently, and the term — we 
discussed this. I asked the question, and we said, well, I knew 



10 
ll 
12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



them as Mexicans, and they knew me as a Japanese. And then it 

came to Mexican-Americans, with MAPA being a product of that 

jj 

25 



26 

27 
28 



term, Mexican-American Political Action Committee. And yes, but 
most of us were too lazy, I guess, to put the term "American" on 
there . 



35 

1 SENATOR AYALA: I'm of your era, so there were no 

2 ^hyphenated Americans in those days . 

3 MR. NAKASHIMA: That's right. 

4 SENATOR AYALA: Okay. 

5 I guess my next question is that student fees at the 

i 

6 university went up 24 percent last fall, and 40 percent the year 

7 before. 

8 How can you justify giving the retiring President 

9 Gardner such a shocking retirement package? How can you justify 

10 increasing fees and giving this gentleman a very generous 

11 retirement plan? 

12 MR. NAKASHIMA: The retirement package referred to by 

13 you included funds which had been set aside under what they 

14 referred to under a program of contractual relationship as 

15 N-DIP, N dash D-I-P, which means nondef erred income plan. 

16 In the mid- '80s, the Internal Revenue Code was 

17 amended to make it disadvantageous for retirement programs, so 
1 

18 they set up this N-DIP, nondef erred retirement income plan, to 

19 set aside so much money each year which would be the equivalent 

20 of a raise that that person should really receive. 

21 This was all — the amounts were all established by a 

22 study by a consulting firm, Towers Perrin. These funds were set 

23 aside with the agreement that the individual had to be employed 

24 five years in order to be fully vested. And so each year, a 

25 separate program was established. 

26 And of the amount of money that was paid out to 
President Gardner upon his retirement, there was accumulated the 

28 



36 



1 total sum from these sources with six contracts, an amount of 
approximately four hundred and sixty some-odd thousand dollars. 

3 This had already been set aside for him by contractual 

l 

4 relationship. 

5 In fact, at one of these meetings at the time that 
the package was discussed, Speaker Brown appeared at the Regent 
meeting, and he reiterated the fact that these were contracts, 

8 and that he was — that President Gardner was entitled to it. 

9 The balance of it comes from other programs, the 

10 (retirement packages that are normal under the outside the N-DIP 
program. And in order to make this available, there had to be 
certain waivers by the Board. In order to make sure that 
everything was proper, the firm of Morrison and Forester, I 

14 believe, was engaged to give an opinion. And they gave us a 

15 28-page opinion. 

16 It was very difficult for an individual to know all 

17 the facets and all the details of everything. You have to 

18 depend upon professionals, like Towers and Perrin consulting 

IQ 

iy firm, and Morrison and Forester, the law firm. And all of these 

20 ;; reports indicated that these were proper. 

21 ll In retrospect, perhaps, I think, the method in which 

it was done, the method in which it was made public, and the way 
it was treated was probably not a good way. And I think that if 
everything had been done with full explanation, I don't think 
25 that we would have had the uproar that we had. 

SENATOR AYALA: Given the economic conditions of the 
! state today, particularly in education, don't you think that you 

28 



37 



i 

1 folks got carried away a little bit on that issue? 

~> 

* You have a method you used. Is this method still in 

3 place so that the next President will also be given those 

il 

4 generous — 

MR. NAKASHIMA: Well, all of these programs are being 
6 reviewed right now. And if you have an agreement with an 
individual, there's very little you can do about trying to 

8 cancel them. You can stop them, the future application of those 

9 programs, but the new President that we have is a real hands-on 

I] 

10 President. And he has named several committees to check into 

I 

11 various phases of all of the management of the University, 

12 including academic, and finances, and fees, management, and so 

13 forth. 

14 And I think that, given the — he's been President 

15 now since October 1st of 1992, and he, according to my feelings 

16 and the discussions I have had with others, he is seemingly on 

17 the right track in trying to correct the situation that caused 

18 the problems in the past. 
'i 

19 SENATOR AYALA: All these items that were included in 

20 :the retirement package came from set aside funds, you say. 

21 , MR. NAKASHIMA: That's right. 

22 SENATOR AYALA: But they were still tax dollars; 

23 weren't they? 

24 MR. NAKASHIMA: Pardon? 

25 j SENATOR AYALA: Were they tax dollars? 

26 MR. NAKASHIMA: No. 

27 SENATOR AYALA: They were not tax dollars? 

28 



38 



1 MR. NAKASHIMA: No, no. 

2 SENATOR AYALA: Where did these funds come from? 

3 MR. NAKASHIMA: A retirement fund. 

4 SENATOR AYALA: From the retirement funds. 

5 MR. NAKASHIMA: Yes. 

6 SENATOR MORGAN: Mr. Chairman, may I comment? 

7 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, Senator. 

8 SENATOR MORGAN: At the time that this issue came up, 
y III did call Mr. Nakashima as somebody that I trusted on the Board 

10 of Regents, because I, too, was concerned. And perhaps this 

11 ; shows that although these are political appointments, they're 

12 not political people that get the job and perhaps aren't as 

'■> sensitive as we need to be as politicians. They were doing a 

14 job. 
Ij 

15 There was money, as I understood it at the time, that 

16 had come through investments that the University has made that 

ii 

17 comes from many sources, including alumni giving, and it's much 

18 like an individual having an annuity or buying a life insurance 

19 with incomes due, that in a business-like fashion, the Regents 
had invested money on behalf of the President and had signed a 

21 contract. And so that they felt that, you know, the contract 

22 needed to be honored or it would be — there would be an even 

23 greater problem. 

24 So, I was convinced, after my conversation with him, 
that they had behaved in a business-like manner, and had in fact 
not used the general fund dollars that we had provided through 

the budget, but had used other funds available to the 

28 



39 



1 University. 

2 If I remember it correctly — 
ii 

3 SENATOR AYALA: Senator Morgan, could they have used 

4 these funds for other activities? Are these designed just for 

5 that purpose? Can they use them for anything else? 

6 MR. NAKASHIMA: No. 

7 SENATOR MORGAN: They can use them for many things. 

8 SENATOR AYALA: Let me ask you again. Would this 

9 type of thing happen again with the way you are running the 
retirement plan for the — 

MR. NAKASHIMA: I don't think so, because I think all 



10 

ii 



12 the programs are being reviewed, and they will be changed. 

13 But there have been some N-DIPs for other officers, 

14 but they don't amount to a large amount. 

15 SENATOR AYALA: If they're not used for this purpose, 

16 those funds, what else can they be used for? 

17 MR. NAKASHIMA: Just for retirement. 

18 j SENATOR AYALA: That's it? 

19 MR. NAKASHIMA: Unless the individual does something 

20 Ijfco forfeit his rights to it. 

|i 

21 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

22 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Kopp. 

23 SENATOR KOPP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, 
Committee Members, for giving me an opportunity to participate 
in the hearing. 

Before I ask Mr. Nakashima some questions, let me 
state for the record that I am reasonably certain the source of 



24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



40 



those funds is manifold, and I trust that the reporter reported 

2 

Senator Morgan's accurate statement that those funds could, in 
large part if not completely, be used for many purposes. This 
happens to be one of them. 

Mr. Nakashima, I attended the meeting of the Regents 
on April 20 of 1992. And together with many others, I made a 

7 

statement. 

But what I'm particularly interested in is your 

Q 

statement at the time, and let me refresh your memory with 

10 ' 

respect to a statement by one of your colleagues, Regent 

I! 

Jeremiah Hallisey, who had prepared a six or seven page 

12 

j; document. 

Do you remember that document that was distributed to 
14 iall the Regents? 

MR. NAKASHIMA: I remember some documents that he did 

16 distribute. 

17 SENATOR KOPP: All right. 

18 

Mr. Hallisey, utilizing that document, and this is 
19 'for the benefit of the Members of the Committee, stated the 



20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



following in pertinent part after a report had been made by the 
Chairman of the Finance Committee, Regent Williams, justifying 
the money that was conferred by action of the Regents a month 
before on the voluntarily retiring President of the University 
of California, Mr. Gardner. 

Regent Hallisey said, and I quote from the transcript 
of that April 20, 1992 meeting: 

"The original charge of the 



41 



1 Subcommittee on Officers ' Salaries when it 

2 was created in 1954 states it was ' . . . to 
study the subject of persons in the 

4 University who have been overlooked and 

5 whose salaries had not properly been 

6 adjusted. ' 

7 "I would suggest that we have come a 

8 very, very, very long way from that 
original charge when we are awarding a 

10 severance package of some $1.2 million and 

11 $126,000 a year for life that begins, not 

12 like the rest of the working stiffs in the 

13 audience, at age 65, but at age 60, and it 

14 is fully indexed for inflation." 

15 Then Mr. Hallisey continues by stating: 

16 "President Gardner is going on to 

17 another job that he refused to disclose 

18 the salary — I can only assume that it's 

19 several hundred thousand dollars a year — 
zu at the Hewlett Foundation. Another man 

Z1 was in a similar situation, Robert 

22 Stevens, the Chancellor at Santa Cruz. He 

came to Mr . Brady ..." 
And "Mr. Brady" refers to Ronald Brady, who is Vice President of 
the University of California. 

"He came to Mr. Brady. He asked for a 

27 

change in the vesting date." 

28 



42 



1 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the vesting date is a 

2 significant term and a significant date in terms of whether 
there's an obligation, or whether the University Regents 

4 conferred a nonobligatory amount of money of several hundred 

thousand dollars — approximately a million dollars upon 

6 somebody. 
1 "Mr. Brady said, you do not qualify. He 

8 only worked there for four and a half 

9 years, is the response, while President 

10 Gardner worked twenty years . The 

11 difference, however, is he was asking for 

12 $80,000, not a million-two, yet that was 

13 turned down. 

14 "When we made this decision, we did 

15 not receive a legal opinion; it was talked 
j 

16 about. It was not given to the Regents, 

17 both from Morrison and Forester and 

.' 
I 
I 

18 O'Melveny and Myers, a legal opinion that 

19 we have spent thousands and thousands of 

20 dollars to justify. 

21 "Now we have an opinion from Towers 

22 Perrin, a management consultant group. 
ii 

23 This is a group that we pay hundreds of 

24 thousands of dollars to do management 
studies, actuarial studies, and what would 
you expect but them to come back and say 
the management is underpaid. 

28 



43 



1 "The California Post Secondary 

2 Education Commission considered this. 

3 They said by the study of four systems 

4 that he received 83 percent more than 

5 other presidents. Bu*t another measure, he 

6 received 33 percent more. Even then, the 
study did not account for $126,000 in 

8 pension benefits; it did not include 

9 |; $85,000 in income tax payments, house 
maintenance payments, house allowance 
payments, and property taxes. It did not 
include $70,000 in additional NDIPs." 

13 Nonqualified Deferred Income Plan. 

14 "He was only given credit for $63,000 in 

15 NDIPs. So when all of these things are 
added, he is grossly, grossly, grossly 
overpaid, and anyone can see that. 

"Regent Williams says that the only 



10 
11 
12 



16 

17 
18 



19 thing we did is grant administrative 

20 leave. The fact of the matter is, if we 

2i : 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



voted no on that issue, he would have 
received a pension of $104,771 over 18 
years, for a total of $1.9 million, 
indexed for inflation and beginning at age 
60. And instead, we have given him 
$60,000 in administrative leave; $60,850 
on the NDIP I; $247,000 on NDIPs II, IV, 



44 



17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



25 
26 

27 
28 



10 

I 
11 

I! 

.2 i 



1 V, and Special; $184,000 on NDIP III; 

2 $306,000 in Special Supplement I, and 

3 $397,000 in Special Supplement II. All of 

ji 

those are discretionary with us, and we 

i 
J have decided to grant them, despite the 

6 fact that we did not grant them to Robert 

_ 

7 Stevens, who had considerably less money 

8 involved . 

9 "When we look at his annual salary, 
he is making $243,500. He was receiving 
$9,000 for an insurance policy. He was 

getting $5,500 for his property taxes on 

ii 

13 his house. He was getting $25,000 for a 

14 house allowance. He was getting $28,000 

15 for house maintenance. We were paying the 

16 income taxes on that. 

"How many on this Board were aware 

that we were paying the income taxes that 
he would have to pay on the income for his 
house maintenance? That was unilaterally 
decided with the President by the Chair of 

22 the Finance Committee or a memorandum to 

23 the file; I have not found out as of yet. 

24 



"The Associate President position 
... 
That's the one for the wife or the spouse, we're paying monies 
for the spouses of Chancellors. 



45 



1 "The Associate President position 

2 generated approximately $25,000 for him. 

3 He was given an interest subsidy on his 

4 home. The mortgage was 6.11 percent when 
the going rate was 11 and 12 percent 

6 during most of this period. That 

' generated $16,000 more a year. He was 

8 getting fringe benefits of 22 percent of 

y his base salary; that's $53,000 a year. 

10 An automobile at $8400 a year; $7500 for 

11 estate and tax planning; $26,000 in 

12 special NDIPs; $12,000 in NDIP I; $14,000 

13 in NDIP II; $46,000 in NDIP III ..." 

14 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What's NDIP? 

15 SENATOR KOPP: Nonqualified Deferred Income Plan. In 

16 the jargon of the University of California's Finance Committee, 

17 it's NDIPs. 

i 

18 "$46,000 in NDIP III; $14,000 in NDIP IV; 

19 $16,000 in NDIP V. A total of $562,000. 

20 "He had a driver. He had $85,000 

21 that we were paying for Blake House to be 

22 vacant ..." 

That's the Chancellor's home at the University of California at 

24 Berkeley campus, 

ZJ "... to maintain it, and despite the fact 

26 that he had no obligation at his Orinda 

27 

home to maintain social functions as he 

28 



46 



1 did at his Utah connection ... he also had 

2 an expense account of $50,000, and he has 

3 a pension of $2.3 million over the 

4 lifetime beginning at age 60 and fully 

5 indexed for inflation." 

6 Now, Mr. Nakashima, does that refresh your 
recollection generally and substantially as to Mr. Hallisey's 

|! 

8 comments at the time? 

9 CHAIRMAN ROBERT I : I'm going to let Mr. Nakashima 
refresh his recollection, and I'm going to break for five 



10 



11 minutes. 

12 [Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 

13 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The Committee will come to order. 

14 Mr. Nakashima, Senator Kopp posed a question of you. 

15 Would you like to respond, please? 

16 SENATOR KOPP: I think the question was whether that 

17 refreshed your memory as to what Mr. Hallisey said at that 

18 meeting? 

19 MR. NAKASHIMA: Yes. 

20 SENATOR KOPP: And I've given you a copy of a 

21 document entitled, "SEVERANCE PACKAGE OF PRESIDENT GARDNER". 

Do you recall that this was distributed by 
Mr. Hallisey at the meeting to each of the Regents? 



23 



24 MR. NAKASHIMA: Yes. 

25 SENATOR KOPP: At that meeting, Mr. Nakashima, you 
26 



27 



made a statement in support of a motion by the Chairman of the 
Finance Committee, Mr. Williams, which was seconded by the 



47 



17 



,i 



1 Governor of the State of California to re-affirm the money which 

2 had been conferred on Mr. Gardner in March; correct? 

3 MR. NAKASHIMA: Yes. 

4 SENATOR KOPP: And your statement was as follows, and 

5 I quote : 

6 "I hope that the newspapers print 
Speaker Brown's comments word for word, 

8 and I appreciate it. This package passed 

9 out by Regent Hallisey disturbs me 

10 tremendously, because I have seen figures 

11 in the newspapers, anywhere from $480,000 
I 

12 to $1,400,000. Tomorrow you're going to 

u see some paper coming out saying that the 

14 severance package for President Gardner is 

15 $4,940,000, and that he has been receiving 

Ij 

16 $2,300,000 a year. This is the type of 



information that distorts. I really don't 



18 like it, and I think it ' s a disservice not 

19 only to the Regents and President Gardner, 

20 but I think to the people of the State of 

ji 

21 California, for Regent Hallisey to put out 

22 trash like this. " 

23 I assume from that comment that you consider the 

document that Mr. Hallisey prepared to be trash; is that 
ij 

25 correct? 

26 MR. NAKASHIMA: I didn't like it. 

27 



SENATOR KOPP: Do you consider it trash? 



28 



48 



1 i MR. NAKASHIMA: That's my statement. 

2 SENATOR KOPP: Well, Mr. Nakashima, can you point out 

3 ior identify any part of that laboriously prepared document which 

4 is incorrect? 
I 

5 MR. NAKASHIMA: The information on these sheets that 

6 I was referring to was the sum of $4,184,855 is deceiving to 

ij 

' show that figure as being the total under the title of severance 

8 package of President Gardner. And that's what I referred to. 

9 And I think that this is misleading, and this is the type of 

■ 
Ij 

10 information and method of presentation that creates problems. 

11 j SENATOR KOPP: Was the $60,000 for administrative 

12 leave accurate? 

13 MR. NAKASHIMA: The $60,000 administrative leave 

14 refers to the period from October 1st to December 31st, and I 

i 

15 jithink it ' s pretty standard practice to grant this type of 

16 situation — of the compensation to anyone who is retiring from 

17 a position of that nature. 



18 



SENATOR KOPP: What you did, what you voted to do, 



19 jwas to give an executive who was retiring on his own, not 
i; 

20 because of age, on his own, three months' administrative leave; 

21 correct? 
ii 

22 MR. NAKASHIMA: That's right. 

23 SENATOR KOPP: And that had a value of $60,000; 

24 correct? 

25 ; MR. NAKASHIMA: Yes. 

li 

26 SENATOR KOPP: That enabled the same executive to 

I 

qualify for the Nonqualified Deferment Income Plan payments 

i 1 

28 



49 



1 under the various schedules; correct? 

2 MR. NAKASHIMA: I believe so. 

J SENATOR KOPP: And are the figures for each of those 

4 plans, NDIP I, NDIP II, NDIP IV, NDIP Special, NDIP III, 

5 accurate? 
i 1 

6 MR. NAKASHIMA: I don't know whether they're accurate 

or not. 
8 SENATOR KOPP: Don't you know that Mr. Hallisey 

obtained these from the staff of the University of California? 

MR. NAKASHIMA: Well, I will accept it. 

SENATOR KOPP: And the $2,335,606, do you know what 



7 



10 

II 



12 , that consists of? 

13 MR. NAKASHIMA: That appears to be the retirement 

14 



15 
16 

17 
18 
19 



payment to him over a period of 18.5 years. 

SENATOR KOPP: Which is based upon annuity; correct? 

MR. NAKASHIMA: Based on $126,249. 

SENATOR KOPP: And indexed for inflation; correct? 

MR. NAKASHIMA: Yes. 

SENATOR KOPP: And do you have any reason to doubt 
the accuracy of the $912,000 that's made up of the items that 

21 are set out under the heading "House Orinda"? 

22 MR. NAKASHIMA: I have no way of determining the 

23 accuracy of that figure. 

24 SENATOR KOPP: Did you take the time to ascertain 

i 

what the total value of those benefits amounted to? 

26 MR. NAKASHIMA: No. 

27 1 

I SENATOR KOPP: Well, can you point to any written 

28 I 



50 



contract which constitutes a legal obligation to confer these 

2 ! amounts on Mr. Gardner? 

3 MR. NAKASHIMA: The contracts were in the possession 

4 of the individuals who take care of those matters at the 

University. I don't think any Regent has copies of contracts of 

6 this nature. 
l| 

SENATOR KOPP: Do you know whether Mr. Gardner ever 

signed a contract when he was engaged as President of the 



8 



9 University of California? 



10 



MR. NAKASHIMA: I don't know. I wasn't on the Board 



11 then. 

12 SENATOR KOPP: Would it surprise if I informed you 

13 that no such contract was ever signed by him? 



MR. NAKASHIMA: I wouldn't know what to think. 



14 

15 SENATOR KOPP: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you 

ii 

16 giving me the opportunity. I want to make a statement. 



17 



I cannot vote to confirm Mr. Nakashima, because I 



18 consider this a very serious document. I happen to know that it 

19 took hours to prepare. It was distributed by a member of the 

20 Regents of the University of California in good faith. 

21 Under the Constitution of the State of California, 

ii 

the Regents have the duties of a trustee. The University of 

California under the Constitution is a public trust. 

And to characterize this document and the contents of 

25 

it as "trash" is unacceptable to me as a Senator with the 

if\ 

obligation to vote either to confirm or not confirm the 

i 

27 

appointment of a trustee of the public trust known as the 

28 



10 



23 
24 



51 



1 University of California. 

2 MR. NAKASHIMA: Perhaps the use of the word "trash" 

3 might not have been appropriate. Perhaps I should have used 

4 some other term, but I still remember that when this document 

5 was presented, another Regent stood up and made a statement 

6 referring to this particular document, tore it in half. 

7 SENATOR KOPP: Yes, that was Mr. Bagley. That was 

8 Mr. Bagley who, in one of the most buffoonish acts I've ever 
seen in public life, took this, with that characteristic 

Bagleyesque way, and started to tear it up as you uttered the 

'i 

11 word "trash". 

12 That also is quite an accomplishment for a person 

13 given the public trust of administering the University of 

1 4 California. 

15 MR. NAKASHIMA: I'm sorry, Senator Kopp, if I 
' 6 ; offended you. 

1 7 SENATOR KOPP: Well, you offended me by your 

,8 characterization of the document, and Mr. Bagley offended me by 

19 his buffoonish ways. 

20 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 
2i Senator Petris . 

22 SENATOR PETRIS: I want to thank Senator Kopp for 

bringing all of this out. He did it previously in public 
statements and on the Floor. 

25 I think the focus is misdirected, however. I've been 

hearing, as I said on the Floor, many statements. I can't 

27 



attribute any of them to Senator Kopp, although he may have made 



28 



52 



1 the statement somewhere or other, but I've heard an awful lot of 
statements from our colleagues that we ought to run government 

3 like a business. 

4 Well, that's what these fellows are doing, Senator 

5 Kopp. They were running the University like a business. They 

6 come from big businesses, and they're used to passing around the 

7 cookies. And there isn't a day in the financial page, or at 

8 least a week, that goes by on the financial page where I don't 
read about some company that has a lot less employees than the 
University, and certainly nothing to match the number of 



10 



11 students at the University, very, very small compared to the 

12 University, who are conferring upon their retiring CEO enormous 

13 benefits that dwarf these. 

14 I remember an oil company executive whose company had 

15 lost $100 or $200 million, continuing to take a salary of $5 

16 million a year. And the L.A. Times published a whole list a 

17 year or so ago on these terribly inflated cookies that are 

18 conferred on these people. 

19 Now, you say that's private, but the consumer pays 
for it. The consumer pays for it. And when he's buying that 

21 gallon of gas, or that raggedy doll, or whatever it is they're 
selling, he doesn't know anything about what's going on in that 
boardroom. And the board of directors in some companies — I'm 

24 not condemning everybody in the private sector, but it's common 

25 enough to set a pattern. 

^° So these guys come in, appointed by a conservative 



27 
28 



Republican Governor, drawn from the ranks of upper level 



53 



1 business people, so they do what they think is normal. 

To you and me, it's shocking. I know the figures 
shocked all of us, and I think it's a good public service you 

4 performed when you put the spotlight on it. It was kind of 

5 late. It had already been done and so forth. 

6 I still think that we all operate at the level of 

7 experience that we know over the years . 

8 I'm a poor boy from West Oakland that went to 
McClannan's High School. The only one in my class who went 

10 directly to the University of California, and my expenses at 

11 U.C. were paid by the other classmates who went right to work. 

12 You know, they paid my way at U.C. And I've never forgotten 

13 that. 

14 So, I never dream of figures like this. But a lot of 

15 other people think it's normal. That's the way you do things. 

16 Now, the public trust ought to require them to look 

17 more carefully, you know, at the numbers. I think you're 

18 absolutely right about that. 

19 And probably the worst part was the secrecy. As the 
Regents said, the secrecy should not have been done that way. 

21 SENATOR KOPP: You strike a nerve, because, Mr. 

Chairman, if you'll indulge me one brief moment. I happened to 
re-read my remarks at that meeting, and I said this, Senator 

24 Petris : 

25 "Thirdly, I want to direct my 

26 remarks to those of Regent Harold 

27 

Williams. The details of his remarks, and 

28 



54 



1 the allied papers, will, I am sure, be 

2 examined and discussed during the course 

3 of today's meeting of the Board, but let 

4 me give you my unadorned conclusion from 

5 not only his remarks, but from all of the 

6 material that has finally been opened to 

7 the public. No matter how you slice it, 

8 this is a rich, rich, rich compensation 

9 package, and it is based upon faulty 
premises . And I want to tell you what 
those faulty premises are. 

"On page 2, Mr. Williams makes the 
statement that the public sector is at a 
'distinct disadvantage.' That's the 
premise . 

"Well, I say the public sector is 
not at a distinct disadvantage. We 

18 wouldn't have Pete Wilson as Governor of 

19 an organism that spends $60 billion a year 

20 at a salary of about $120,000 if the 
public sector was at a distinct 
disadvantage. Not if service in a public 
office is based upon the ethos of public 
service. If you're comparing it to 



10 

n 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 



21 

22 
23 
24 



25 Eastman Kodak and General Motors and IBM, 

26 

27 



you're not talking about public service. 
"The person who makes his or her 



28 



10 



55 



1 mark, as President Gardner has done in the 

2 public sector, is ... the type of person 

3 who decides he or she wants to dedicate 

j 

4 him or herself to public service." 

5 SENATOR PETRIS: Good point. 

6 SENATOR KOPP: Can I ask that this paper be attached 

7 to the record so that anyone reading it will know what the 

I 

8 ^document is? 

9 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Ayala moves that the 
compendium of Regent Hallisey be attached to the record. 

11 SENATOR PETRIS: May I go back to conclude? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: One of the points I wanted to touch 
on was our concern about appointments from all levels of life be 
more reflective of the general population as required by the 
1974 amendment to the Constitution. 

Now, in re-appointing you, I think the Governor, as 
;,to this appointment, has complied with that. I hope you would, 

in your discussions, relay my message; although I hope to see 

il 

him myself to do it, too, that I hope he continues this policy 

I 
II 

of drawing on people from various segments of the population to 

show that the Regents reflect the general population to a 

I 

greater extent than we've had in the recent past. 

There ' s a question I had which you may know about or 

not. There is a provision in that same Constitution that 

requires the Governor to confer with an advisory committee 

ii 

ji 

before he makes any appointments to the Regents. And it spells 



13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



56 



1 out who the members of the advisory committee are. They 



include: the Speaker, and two public members appointed by the 
Speaker, and the President of the Senate, and two public members 
appointed by the President of the Senate, and some others. 

I: 
c 

J In the Senate, we made those appointments, but as far 

6 as I know, Mr. President, there's never been a meeting of that 

7 advisory committee. As far as I know, it's never conferred with 

8 the Governor. 

i 

9 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Not that I can recall in all the 

i 

years that I * ve been here . 

SENATOR PETRIS: It probably has never conferred with 
! any governor since '74, so I'm not laying the blame on Governor 
Wilson exclusively. 

But it seems to me that this recent amendment, 
relatively speaking, was designed to see to it that we get a 
better balance in the appointments to the Regents. And I guess 
at our end, we've been negligent in not reminding each Governor 



10 

n 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 



18 to make sure that this policy is carried out. After all, it ' s a 

19 mandate from the people embedded in the Constitution. 

20 






21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



I would refer you to Article IX and the amendment of 

1974. We have a copy here we can probably give you. And to the 

extent to that the Governor confers with the Regents, which he 

may do sometime, about future appointments, it may be helpful to 

remind him of that provision as well. 
i 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I think that would be fine, and I 

think we should maybe send a letter, I would say, that all 

future appointments will not be confirmed unless the process — 



57 



1 SENATOR PETRIS: Is followed. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — is followed. It's a 

constitutional process, and not to single out Governor Wilson. 

i 

I just don't think any governor — 

SENATOR PETRIS: I don't think any governor's done 
it. 

7 SENATOR BEVERLY: I never heard of it until this 

8 moment. 

9 SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I didn't hear of it until 

I; 

10 about an hour before the meeting started. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That shows you how it has been 



11 



12 observed. 



13 



SENATOR PETRIS: I don't want to lay it on the 



14 Governor alone. I mean, every Governor since 1974 has had that 



15 



duty, and none of the governors, so far as we know — and I 



16 think I've been on this Committee since about that time — 



17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



they've never done it. 

So, it would just be a polite, constructive proposal 
to the Governor, reminding him that perhaps it's time that this 
provision were followed. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Nakashima, you can take our 

22 message to the Governor. 

ZJ j MR. NAKASHIMA: For your information, there's been 

considerable discussion among Regents with respect to the next 
appointments to be made by the Governor. And without any 
reservation, the unanimous feelings are that it must from the 
under-represented minorities. Let's come right out and say it, 



24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



58 



1 so that we have recommended there be a Black, a Chicano, or an 
Asian. And that the two should be from these three categories. 

3 And we have discussed this, and we're hopeful that 

4 the Governor will listen to us. 

5 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

6 SENATOR BEVERLY: I have one question. 

7 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly. 

8 SENATOR BEVERLY: Just a matter of curiosity. 

9 What was the vote on the retirement package for the 

10 'President? 
i' 

11 MR. NAKASHIMA: I think it was — in favor of it was 



12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



everyone excepting, I believe, Mr. Hallisey, Yvonne Braithwaite 
Burke, and I think there might have been one other person. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a question for Senator Kopp. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Kopp, did you indicate that there 
was no binding contract that would legally force the Regents to 



19 comply with this retirement package? 

20 SENATOR KOPP: That's right. 

i 
21 



What they did with this administrative leave is, then 
allow those plans, which would not take effect until various 
years in the future after the age of 65, to take effect. 

SENATOR AYALA: But coming in, there was no 
commitment to Dr. Gardner that when he retired, he would get all 
these little goodies? There was no legal requirement? 

SENATOR KOPP: Until he had served for the period of 



59 



1 time required. 

2 SENATOR AYALA: Then he did have some binding — 

3 SENATOR KOPP: If he served — 

4 SENATOR AYALA: Did he? 

5 SENATOR KOPP: — until the various ages that are 

6 required to qualify. 

He did not serve the full time required. And so, the 

8 granting of administrative leave was critical to him getting an 

9 entitlement and vesting, in effect. 

i 

10 SENATOR PETRI S: I have one more question. 

11 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, Senator Petris. 

12 SENATOR PETRIS: You mentioned that these policies 

13 are now under review and will be changed. 

14 Have any of the contracts you mentioned been 

15 renegotiated or changed? 

16 MR. NAKASHIMA: I believe the — there's been a 
suspension of these NDIP programs until such time as some study 
is made of it, then a decision is made. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any further questions? 



17 
18 
19 
20 



21 I'd like to make an observation. 



22 



I intend to vote for your confirmation because of 



23 your background and your qualifications. 

24 However, I do share very much Senator Kopp's concern 

25 



26 

27 
28 



in this area. It is almost as if the Regents are living on 
another planet, when we are trying to discuss tightening the 
belt of the state, tightening the belt of the University, asking 



60 



1 the University to act within a realm of reality that everybody 

2 else in this state seems to perceive. 

3 And I don't have any quarrel with how Dr. Gardner 

4 conducted himself at the University. I think he was a fine 

5 President, but there are lots of fine people who do public 

6 service. There may be even an occasional fine Legislator. 

And a retirement and salary package of this enormity 

8 at a time like this is incomprehensible. Incomprehensible. It 

9 did the University damage. I won't say irreparable damage, but 
it did the University damage, doing it in secret. 

These are things we ' ve learned the hard way in the 
Legislature. You don't do that, because eventually the public 
finds out anyway, and you erode public confidence. We, too, 
have learned it the hard way. 

I would hope that the University has learned by this 
error, and I really counsel you and the other members of the 
Board of Regents that, at a time when we're tightening our belt, 
we can't do these super generous packages. 

How do we answer to the taxpayers? How do you answer 
to the taxpayers and the students? 
21 We all have to set examples, and we all fall short 

because we're human beings. But I think anybody, when they saw 
this package, thinking in terms of public reaction, would have 
known without even asking a question that this was way too 
generous for these times. Maybe way too generous, period. 

And that is not to cast any aspersion on Dr. Gardner, 
whom I know and whom I think performed admirably for the 

28 



10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



24 
25 
26 



61 



1 University, but damage was done. 

2 MR. NAKASHIMA: I would like to make one comment. 

I believe that Regent Hallisey performed admirably. 

4 He contributed a tremendous amount to the Regents by his 

c J! 

opposition to many things. 

6 I've always felt that when there's unanimity at all 

7 times on all matters, something is wrong. And I appreciate it. 

8 It might have been uncomfortable for me at times for 

9 i Senator Kopp to be here and questioning me, but I appreciate the 

10 fact that he has come . I think he ' s brought things out that 

11 might not have been out in the open up to now. 

12 All I can say is, I acted in good faith and upon the 

13 advice of attorneys and Speaker Brown, and certain other 

14 i individuals . And if an error was made, I don't think it was 

15 intentional. 

16 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are there any other questions? 

17 Is there any opposition in the audience? 

18 Do I hear a motion? 

19 SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

20 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves 

21 confirmation be recommended to the Floor. 

22 Secretary will call the roll. 

23 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. Senator Beverly. 

24 SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

25 SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

26 SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

28 



bZ 



10 
11 



1 Senator Roberti. 

2 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI; Aye. 

3 SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

4 CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is three to zero; 
-> confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

6 Congratulations . 

7 MR. NAKASHIMA: Thank you very much. 

8 [Thereupon this portion of the 

9 Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately 
4:15 P.M. ] 



12 — ooOoo — 

13 i ! 

j 

14 

15 
16 
17 
18 

19 

I 
20 

21 

22 

i 

23 

|j 

24 

25 

26 

ii 

27 
28 



63 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
! attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 



this 



s~ 



>& 



day of February, 1993. 



Shorthand Reporter 




*jC. 



19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 




64 

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 

Jeremiah F. Hallisey 300 Montgomery Street 

Regent Suite 53S 

San Francisco. California 94104 
415-433*5300 

SEVERANCE PACKAGE OF PRESIDENT GARDNER 

60,000 Administrative Leave 

60,850 NDIP I (would not receive it without 

administrative leave) 

247,400 NDIP II, IV, Special 

184,357 NDIP III 

306,000 Special Supplemental to Retirement Program I 

3 2,687 Executive Severance Pay Plan 

45 , 955 Associate Severance Credits 

$937,249 Sub Total 

2,335,606 $126,249 x 18.5 years 

Begins at age 60 and will be indexed for 
inflation 

912,000 House Orinda , 

Approximately $912,000 paid to President Gardner 
over ten years. $65,000 each year paid to 
Gardner by University over 10 years, for housing 
allowance, house maintenance, income taxes on 
house maintenance, property taxes, and the 
difference between his real equity and his 
purported equity of $150,000, plus $160,000 in 
interest subsidies over ten years. 

$4,184,855 Total 



65 




THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 



Jeremmh F. Hallisey 
Regent 



300 Montgomery Street 

Suite 53S 

San Francisco. California 94104 

415-433*5300 



APPROXIMATE ANNUAL COMPENSATION, 
AND COSTS OF PRESIDENT GARDNER 



FRINGE BENEFITS, MISC. BENEFITS 



Annual 

243,500 

9,000 

5,500 

25,000 

28,800 

11,520 

25,000 

(approx. ) 

16,000 
53,000 

-» O f\ r\ 
_/ , Ul/U 

8,400 

7,500 

26,152 
12,170 

14,095 
46,089 
14,963 
16,025 

$565,714 

10,000 
85,000 
58,000 
40,000 
10,000 
42.000 

$245,000 



Salary 

Teachers Ins. (TIAA) $500,000 life policy 

Property taxes , Orinda house 

House allowance 

House maintenance 

Income tax paid on house maintenance expense 

Associate President 5% of base pay of President 
plus workers comp. , university travel 

Interest subsidy on Orinda home 

Fringe benefits, 22% of base pay 

Severance account 

Automobile 

Estate planning, tax planning 

Special NDIP 
NDIP I 
NDIP II 
NDIP III 
NDIP IV 
NDIP V 

Subtotal 

Driver 

Maintenance of Blake House 

Expense Account 

Fluor Corporation 

First Security Corp. 

George & Dolores Eccles Foundation 

Subtotal 



$810,714 



TOTAL 



2,335,606 



Pension $126,249 per year for 18.5 years 
Indexed and begins at age 60 



66 



l MW THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 



Jeremiah F. Halusey 300 Montgomery Street 

Re * ent Suite 538 

San Francisco. California 94104 
415- 433*5300 

UTAH HOUSE INFORMATION 

Actual Cash figures only: 

Monies Received by Regents: 

45,000 in 1984 when property first sold to Richards 
160,000 in 1988 when property ultimately sold & Regents cashed out 



205,000 total received (exclusive of below market interest 

received from purchaser/borrower Richards) 



Monies Paid Out by Regents: 

$139,000 payoff Gardner loan to University of Utah 
18,000 commission on sale to Richards 
150,000 advance of equity to Gardner, in form or no interest loan. 
The loan wa» later cancelled by Regents 

(307,000) total paid out by Regents 

(102,000) loss to Regents 



217-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.50 per copy 
plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

11 00 J Street, Room B-1 5 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 217-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1993 
1:58 P.M. 



FEB 9,2 1993 

San t-f\A%iMCiv>cO 



218-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1993 
1:58 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI , Chair 

SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRI S 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

DANIEL APODACA, Member 

California State Lottery Commission 

SENATOR ART TORRES 

RICHARD CRAMER, Member 

California State Lottery Commission 

SHARON SHARP, Director 

California State Lottery Commission 

EDWARD L. LAMMERDING, Member 
California State Lottery Commission 

JAMES W. NIELSEN, Member 
Board of Prison Terms 

SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP 

RALPH D. MORRELL 



Ill 
INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 



DANIEL APODACA, Member 

California State Lottery Commission 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Introductory and Supportive Comments 

by SENATOR ART TORRES 1 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Policy Relating to the Extension of Contracts 2 

Bidding on Contracts in Future 2 

Motion to Confirmm 3 

Committee Action 15 

RICHARD CRAMER, Member 

California State Lottery Commission 4 

Background and Experience 4 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Commitment to Ensure Bidding and Awarding 

of Contracts 4 

Request by SENATOR BEVERLY to Clarify Contract 

Policy of Lottery Commission 5 

SHARON SHARP, Director 

California State Lottery Commission 5 

Extension of Contract with GTECH 5 

RFP for New On-line Vendor Contract 6 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Extension of Original Contract 6 

Understanding of All Bidders about 

Possibility of Extensions 7 



IV 



INDEX ( Continued 1 

Current Contract ' s Expiration 

Public's Lack of Awareness of Process 

Small Number of Contract Bidders 

Terms in RFP re: Length of Contract 
and Extensions 

Hiring of Outside Consultant to Ensure 
that Method and Process of Contracting Is 
Appropriate 

Questions by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Do Extensions of Contracts Come before 
Commission for Approval 

Alternatives to Extensions 

Lottery Is Controversial Due to 
Monies Involved 

New RFP More Open than Any Lottery 
On-line RFP in Country 

Question by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Would Nominee's Answer Be Same as Director's 

Motion to confirm 

Committee Action 

EDWARD L. LAMMERDING, Member 
California State Lottery Commission 

Background and Experience 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Money for Schools 

Percentage of Lottery's Contribution 
to Education Budget 

Request that Commission Inform Public 
that Lottery Monies Are Less than 4% 
of Total School Budget 



10 
10 

11 

13 

14 
14 
15 

15 
15 

16 
16 

17 



INDEX ( Continued 1 

Motion to Confirm 

Committee Action 

JAMES W. NIELSEN, Member 
Board of Prison Terms 

Background and Experience 

Statement of Support by SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Current Prison Population at Folsom 
and San Quentin 

Criteria Used to Determine Eligibility 
for Parole 

Weight of Testimony from Victims or Families 
of Victims 

Witness in Opposition: 

RALPH D. MORRELL 

Nominee's Statement re: Senate Contingency 
Fund 

Response by SENATOR NIELSEN 

Motion to Confirm 

Committee Action 

Termination of Proceedings 

Certificate 
Reporter 



18 
19 

19 
19 
20 



21 
22 
23 

24 

25 

28 

29 

29 

29 

of 
30 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Would the Members have any objection 
to taking those up now? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I have no objection. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Fine, let's go to Item 2 on the 
agenda, which is Governor's appointees appearing today. First 
is Daniel Apodaca, Member, California State Lottery Commission. 

Mr. Apodaca, we're going to ask you what we always 
ask the nominees, and that's to tell us why in their opinion 
they feel they are qualified for the job to which they have been 
nominated. 

MR. APODACA: Senator, one of the five members of the 
Lottery Commission must be a certified public accountant, and I 
have been a certified — I am and I have been a certified public 
accountant for many years . 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Art, do you want to say a few kind 
words? 

SENATOR TORRES: Actually, I just want to stand by 
Mr. Apodaca, whom I've known for many, many years in Los 
Angeles . His character and reputation is impeccable in not only 
the Hispanic community, but the professional community as well. 

I just wanted to indicate that although he's not a 
constituent of mine, I've known him long enough to recommend him 
very highly to the membership of this Committee, and I think he 
will approach this responsibility dutifully, as he has already 
in the interim, since April, I believe. And I would urge your 
appointment. 



SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much. 

Mr. Apodaca, your Senator there with you, his 
endorsement means a great deal to the Members of the Committee. 

At this time I'll ask if there's anyone in the 
audience who wishes to speak in favor of this nominee, or anyone 
who is in opposition? There appears to be none. 

You are, obviously, not very controversial. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a question for Mr. Apodaca, as 
I do for the other members, or rather, candidates. 

We spoke briefly about the issue earlier in which the 
Commission apparently amended some of the policies to extend the 
life of a contract in order to retain the contractor without a 
bid that would go to the lowest qualified bidder. 

I wonder if Mr. Apodaca can explain again how that 
came about? 

MR. APODACA: I'm trying to remember specifically 
which contractor this could be. I know that the entire Lottery 
on-game — on-line gaming system is coming up for bid, and this 
last month the Commission put out a request for proposal. And 
it's my understanding that there are at least two, hopefully 
three, bidders that will be bidding on it. 

SENATOR AYALA: But that practice will cease to exist 
from here on out? Is that what you're saying? 

And in terms of the contracts that have been awarded 
to different contractors, they will be put out to a bid without 
extending the life of that contract to service us through some 
kind of an amendment that the Commission came up with? 

MR. APODACA: Absolutely. 



SENATOR AYALA: You're committed to that, and I want 
to ask the other members the same thing. 

MR. APODACA: Being a member of the business 
community, just like the other Commissioners, I'm sure that we 
all are committed to that. 

SENATOR AYALA: There are five members, and we have 
three here today which will obviously be able to determine the 
outcome of that issue. 

So, you're committed to making sure that the proper 
bidding takes place on any and all contracts that the Lottery 
Commission puts out? 

MR. APODACA: Absolutely. 

SENATOR AYALA: Okay, thank you. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Very well. 

Any other comment from anyone? Members of the 
Committee, what's your pleasure? 

SENATOR AYALA: I'll move the approval of Mr. 
Apodaca — 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Ayala moves — 

SENATOR AYALA: — as a member of the Lottery 
Commission. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Very good, thank you. 

Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly aye. Senator Petris . 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 



Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven aye. Senator Roberti. 

Three to zero. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Request the roll be left open. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Beverly moves that the roll 
be left open. We have two other Members who will be here and 
would like to cast a vote, I'm sure. 

Thank you very much, sir. 

MR. APODACA: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Next is Richard Cramer, Member, 
California State Lottery Commission. 

Mr. Cramer, would you tell us why you feel that you 
are qualified for this position? 

MR. CRAMER: Well, I'm a — I'm a businessman. I've 
run a number of businesses. And I understand the business of 
marketing as well, and I know something about the electronics 
industry, which the Lottery does — is concerned with or 
implements . 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Very good. 

Any questions of the nominee? 

SENATOR AYALA: I have the same question for Mr. 
Cramer . 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Ayala has a question. 

SENATOR AYALA: You heard my question to Mr. Apodaca. 
Can you tell us whether you will commit yourself to making sure 
that any and all contracts that the Commission puts out be open 
to any bidder, and that the best lowest bid is accepted? 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 



MR. CRAMER: The best, best lowest bid, yes. 

Many of our contracts have a provision — 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm sorry? 

MR. CRAMER: Many of our contracts have a provision 
allowing for us to require extensions of the contracts. 

SENATOR AYALA: It isn't quite clear to me how that 
came about. There was an amendment — 

MR. CRAMER: I wasn't there when that happened. 

SENATOR AYALA: It allowed the current contractor to 
expand their life within, you know, as a contractor, because of 
an amendment. And we want to make sure that the best qualified 
lowest bid is acceptable at all times. 

MR. CRAMER: Absolutely, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we might 
clarify the policy. It's not clear to me exactly what it is. 
Maybe the Director or somebody could amplify it a little bit? 

MS. SHARP: If you would like me to. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I would. 

MS. SHARP: Good afternoon. My name is Sharon Sharp. 
I'm Director of the Lottery. 

And I would imagine, and Commissioner Cramer was not 
there, that you are referring to the last extension of the GTECH 
contract, which is our largest contract, our on-line vendor. 

Their contract was for five — four years, plus three 
one-year extensions. 

It is typical in the lottery business, if the 



contractor is doing a good job, and if the system is running, to 
extend those contracts for their extensions if you believe that 
the price is right, and that they are doing a good job. 

We did in fact extend. We are at this point out for 
bid with an RFP because the extensions are up, or they will be 
up next year, for a new on-line vendor contract. 

We always look for the best and the most efficient 
and the most cost effective bidder that we can find. We are in 
a very, very strict process right now, and at that point, when 
the bids are in and a new one is selected, we will be on then 
for another contract, which is a five-year contract for five 
one-year extensions. 

And you have my pledge, as Lottery Director, as I am 
sure you do the Commissioners ' , that we will always look for the 
best qualified bidder. 

SENATOR AYALA: Let me understand what you're saying. 

The contracts were originally for five years in the 
case of this current contractor. 

MS. SHARP: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: But if they're doing a good job in 
the eyes of the Commission, you can extend it for three more 
years -- 

MS. SHARP: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: — and then one beyond that when that 
time is up. 

MS. SHARP: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: Well actually, if they're doing a 
good job they've got a nine-year contract. 



MS. SHARP: Yes. And that is because it is so 
resource intensive and so difficult for a Lottery to change what 
is effectively 13,000 terminals, a system, and everything else. 
You really do try to use all extensions, which is exactly what 
we did. 

But we knew we were going out for bid. But it takes 
about — it takes a good year to get prepared to go out for bid. 

SENATOR AYALA: And when the original bid went out, 
everyone who bid understood the five, three, one? 

MS. SHARP: Yes. In fact, it would be atypical — I 
don't know of any circumstance within the lottery business, or 
they've been very, very rare, where you have not had either the 
first four or five years with a potential of one-year extensions 
where all those extensions have not been exercised. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, where are we with this current 
contract? 

MS. SHARP: The current contract will be up. It was 
let in 1984, when the Lottery first started. It will be up in 
October 14th of 1993. We are presently out for bid again with 
the quest to get as many bidders as possible, qualified bidders. 
Those bids are due into the Lottery office on February the 17th. 
We will the have an evaluation committee and an outside 
consultant that will look at these bids to find us the best 
qualified bidder, plus the best cost, to put those together, and 
to award a contract. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm not sure the public is aware of 
the process, because the perception out there is that this 
icompany has an in with the Commission; they continue to extend 



8 

the contract beyond their termination date. 

MS. SHARP: The company, in fact, which we're dealing 
with is a company named GTECH, which in fact is a very strong 
company in the lottery business. They have two-thirds of the 
contracts in the United States, and about two-thirds of the 
contracts outside. 

The lottery business is a very small business, and 
there is only a limited number of potential bidders. 

Every lottery contract I know, and we're talking 
about tens of millions of dollars, is so hotly contested, and so 
rare in the business, that for those of us in the business, we 
dread more than anything else in the world having to go out for 
an on-line contract. 

SENATOR AYALA: There's a small number of bidders. 

MS. SHARP: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: And apparently you're saying that 
this is commonplace with all the — 

MS. SHARP: Yes, this is typical, and because the 
monies are so large, and the term is fairly long. 

But you have to understand, I'm not sure of this, but 
the lottery has probably the biggest telecommunications network 
in this state. Everything is difficult with us. 

SENATOR AYALA: The three-year extension that can 
occur through an amendment by the Commission to the contract -- 

MS. SHARP: Yes, and that is again typical, built 
into the contract. 

Our new one going out — the one in 1984, and 
somebody yelled back there because I wasn't here then, it was a 



< 9 

four-year term, plus three one-year extensions which were 
exercised at a certain time within — which is exactly what we 
did last year. And as you know, the Lottery, we were having our 
difficulties last year. 

This one, because it has been the trend in the 
lottery business, and that is because the system is so large, it 
is a flat five-year term, plus five one-year extensions which 
may be exercised at will by the permission of the Lottery 
Commission. 

SENATOR AYALA: Coming in, you have this agreement? 

MS. SHARP: Yes, it is part of the contract, and it 
is in the RFP proposal. When they are bidding, they — and 
generally the reason that's done is, a company who knows that if 
they do well, they will have a long-term ten-year commitment. 
Most lottery companies that go in to run a system like this make 
no money, they're working on their money, for at least the first 
three and a half years. 

SENATOR AYALA: Perhaps that's the lack of education 
of the public that take that position that it looked like, with 
a minor amendment, you continue with the same contractor for an 
extension without it going out to bid. 

MS. SHARP: It's typical rather than atypical. 

And by the way, and because any lottery director or 
commission that is not aware of the controversy in this 
business, we did hire an outside consultant to make sure that 
our method and our process was absolutely clear. We do have a 
very respected company, Battelle Memorial Institute, a not-for- 
profit, that does not work for any private sector company, to in 



10 

fact oversee us while we do the process. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MS. SHARP: And so, we want to make our Commission 
safe. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I have a question, if you will. 

You mentioned the extension periods following the 
four years, and then you have the potential of additional one 
year, two years, three years, whatever it may be. 

MS. SHARP: Yes. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: And I think that the term was used, 
if they're doing a good job, it would be renewed. 

Does that come up before the Commissioners or the 
Commission for a decision specifically? 

MS. SHARP: Yes, it does, sir. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: And all of the Commissioners 
supposedly are voting on this; are they not? 

MS. SHARP: Yes. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Suppose — how many Commissioners do 
we have? 

MS. SHARP: Five. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Suppose two of them said, "I don't 
know. Maybe we should try somebody else." You know, for some 
reason whatsoever. 

What would happen then? Would that void the 
opportunity to exercise the option of an additional year? 

MS. SHARP: Our Commission vote is a majority vote. 

But as the Director, if I knew that the Commissioners 
had a problem with any company or the way that we were running 



11 

the Lottery, I'd sure think long and hard about doing it. 

The Lottery is such a public organization that I 
would be reluctant, as the Director, if I had any concern 
whatsoever not to check out alternatives — 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I see. 

MS. SHARP: — before I brought it to the Board. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Now, you heard, and you responded 
very well, to Senator Ayala's question, which I think is rather 
typical of the lack of knowledge of people out in the 
electorate, if you will, who have no idea how this thing runs, 
and that's why they become somewhat suspect, I suppose. 

Is there anything that occurs to you that you should 
say to us or to Senator Ayala, more specifically, that would 
assuage any of the problems that may be out there or have been 
in the past? 

MS. SHARP: Are you talking about contracting? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Yes. 

MS. SHARP: I would say, and I'm fairly new to the 
California process, but I am not new to the lottery business, 
and as I mentioned before, probably the most controversial 
business that many say shouldn't be in state government. In 
fact, I think I've heard it here. 

The lottery business is a very — ultimately a very 
controversial business because of the money involved. I think 
it ' s why that we are a bit paranoid about how we run the 
business. And that is, as I said, the idea of bringing in an 
outside consultant to have us go through a method and a process. 

Going out for an on-line bid is not something we just 



12 

— we have been preparing to go out for this bid for a full 
year. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I see. 

MS. SHARP: Our bottom line is profit, and we always 
look for the most profitable way to do business. 

An on-line vendor, and the quality of their system 

— we don't look at 99 percent; we look at 100 percent — the 
quality of their system, their experience, and the price they 
give are blended together. 

I don't know how to really convince you or to tell 
you how much that we look at method and process, but we do, 
because we realize that what we do has a great impact on our 
playership. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I don't really have to be convinced. 

I would just like to be able to say to people, you 
obviously know how this operates, or why it is done the way it 
is done . 

MS. SHARP: By the way — 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I'll be very frank with you. I have 
a contractor within my district — used to be; he's not any more 

— who wanted to bid on this going in, originally, before you 
were here. And he obviously didn't make it. 

And he may be — although, the corporation's very 
astute and knowledgeable, and they operate in the Orient, and 
they do a big business over there, but they don't do a big 
business at home, and that kind of bothers them a 1 



13 

get a little spooky when they think, well, why can't we get our 
toe in the door? 

They have not really complained to me in any 
vociferous way, but they were originally, of course, very 
disappointed. 

And if they come to me and say, "Bill, you know, why 
do these people continue in there? When do we get a chance to 
bid again? " I would be somewhat lost for words to say what the 
reason was . 

MS. SHARP: I think the part — it takes us, when we 
change the system, not only are we impacting what is now 13,000 
retailers around the state, one of the biggest 
telecommunications network within the state, when we do a 
conversion, when we let a contract and the Lottery does a 
conversion, it takes about six months to do that conversion. 
So, what we're looking at is — and it puts us in total — it 
uses all of our resources. So, this is something you like to do 
as rarely as possible. 

What we have done in this RFP, though, is that we 
have made it probably more open than any lottery on-line RFP in 
the country. And that hopes that your friend will bid, and we 
are looking for as many bidders, because we know that that is 
going to make us cost competitive. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Yes, well, that's very good. All of 
us appreciate your advice. 

MS. SHARP: And may I say for the Commissioners, 
they're all fairly new to the lottery business, but I don't 
think — I don't believe there's a stronger Lottery Commission 



12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



14 

in the United States, and they do keep us on our toes. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Very good. Thank you very much. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Mr. Chairman, I asked that the 
Director come forward only to clarify a point. 

MS. SHARP: This is worse than my confirmation. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: We're not hearing her 
confirmation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now that that's been clarified, may 
I ask the nominee a question? 

Would your answers be the same as hers if you'd been 
asked the same questions? 

MR. CRAMER: It might have been briefer. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thanks. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Do we have a motion before us? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves that 
confirmation be recommended to the Floor. 

Is there any opposition in the audience or neutral 
observations ? 

Then the Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 



15 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is five to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to lift the call that 
pertains to Mr. Apodaca's confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Ayala moves that the call 
on Daniel Apodaca, Member of the California State Lottery 
Commission, be lifted. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris aye. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

The vote is five to zero; confirmation is recommended 
to the Floor. 

The next appointment is that of Mr. Edward L. 
Lammerding, Member of the California State Lottery Commission. 

Mr. Lammerding, we will ask you what we ask all the 
Governor's appointees, why you feel you're qualified to assume 
this position? 

MR. LAMMERDING: I've spent the last 40 years in the 
business and finance industry. I have a reputation as being a 



16 

rather stern administrator and manager, and I feel I can bring 
that experience to the Commission of the Lottery. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are there any questions of 
Mr. Lammerding? Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you get confronted a lot by 
members of the public when they learn you're a Commissioner on 
what are you doing with all that money that's supposed to save 
our schools? 

MR. LAMMERDING: I didn't hear the first part of your 
question, Senator. 

SENATOR PETRIS: When people find out that you're a 
Commissioner, do they often ask you what are you doing with all 
that money that's supposed to be going to the schools? 

MR. LAMMERDING: Well, and I respond that every penny 
is going to the schools. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you tell them what the percentage 
is of the budget? 

MR. LAMMERDING: It's 34 percent under the 
regulations, and the — since my tenure on the Commission, we've 
actually given to the schools a little better than the 34 
percent. 

SENATOR PETRIS: No, I mean what that amounts to with 
respect to the school budget. 

MR. LAMMERDING: It's a very small part of the school 
budget overall, but it's important when you look at half a 
billion dollars. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yeah, that's a drop in the bucket 
for a $32 billion school budget. 



17 

Senator Ayala referred to it. It seems to me the 
public still doesn't realize how it got conned in this whole 
thing to begin with. And they still think that, having voted 
for the Lottery and bought some tickets, that that takes care of 
all the school funding. 

I would respectfully recommend to you and all the 
other Commissioners that they try some how to get the message 
across, even though it was in the official pamphlet where the 
Legislative Analyst said this is not expected to exceed 4 
percent of the total school budget. It's actually less. 

That ' s a figure that ought to be put out there so 
they'll know, no matter how much is raised up to now, a half 
billion dollars is still a very tiny percentage of the total 
need. Because, they're still angry about that. 

MR. LAMMERDING: Yes. And I — all of us members of 
the Lottery Commission and the Lottery management, we understand 
that. 

Lottery staff has done its best through the play 
cards in the retail establishments, how much money has gone to 
the local school districts, not just to the schools in 
California as a whole. 

And unfortunately, we cannot control the public 
impression of 2-4 percent versus the 32 billion which you've 
addressed simply because it's beyond our purview. 

And I feel, as a member of the Commission, it's our 
duty to exploit to the maximum the amount of dollars that the 
Lottery can produce for the schools, at the same time 
acknowledging that it is really a pittance compared to the total 



18 

budget. And unfortunately, I don't have a solution to your 
question, Senator, other than that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I see they put out releases 
from time to time. It seems to me maybe a release, let's say 
you hit a banner year. Let's say this year is the best year you 
ever had. And the last line of that announcement should say, 
"It's still only Ah percent of the total needs of the school." 
Keep hammering at that, people will get the message. 

MR. LAMMERDING: I'm sure we can accommodate that, 
Senator. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I think it ' s a good goal. It ' s a 
matter of communicating facts to the public. 

MR. LAMMERDING: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other questions of 
Mr. Lammerding? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Craven moves confirmation 
be recommended to the Floor. 

Is there anyone in opposition or neutral who would 
like to make some comment? 

Then the Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 



19 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is five to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

MR. LAMMERDING: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next appointment is that of 
James W. Nielsen, Member of the Board of Prison Terms. 

Senator Nielsen, why don't you come forward? 

SENATOR NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I think we know you pretty well. 
Nevertheless, we'll ask you the question — 

SENATOR NIELSEN: I'm seeking no waivers today. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — why you feel you're qualified 
to assume this position? 

SENATOR NIELSEN: The question is, why do I aspire to 
this particular position? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Right. 

SENATOR NIELSEN: Or why do I enjoy it? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Why do you enjoy it, and why do 
you think you're the person for the job? 

SENATOR NIELSEN: Well, first of all, I don't think 
one can say they enjoy hearing the unfortunate kinds of tales 
that one in the capacity of a Commissioner on the Board of 
Prison Terms gets to hear. 

As far as qualifications and understanding, as a 



20 

Legislator I was very active in the area of crime legislation, 
as well as very active in various victim's rights efforts in the 
Legislature. That gave me an awareness and understanding. 

Likewise, as far as budget battles and debates here 
that were applicable to Correctional issues, I got regularly 
apprised on the nuances of those particular issues. 

The kinds of legal questions that we have to deal 
with because of that active legislative role that I played, I 
think, is well-steeped in some of those requirements. 

I will tell you, it's certainly a hard working 
Commission. All of the hearings are held at the institutions 
throughout California, and they are very intense and draining. 
But I think that the Board serves a noble purpose, and Mr. 
Chairman and Members, I've enjoyed served on it. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Kopp. 

SENATOR KOPP: Thank you. 

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, I appear here 
expressly to give expression of my support of the confirmation 
of Senator Nielsen. 

I also want to make an observation that the lawyers 
particularly will appreciate. I don't mean that the non-lawyers 
stop listening. 

But I know enough about the work of this Board, and I 
know enough about Senator Nielsen's application of time and 
effort to it, to observe that there's probably more time and 
effort invested, certainly in the actual reading of transcripts, 
than the average Justice of the California Court of Appeal. 



"5T 

Mr. Nielsen doesn't have a law clerk to do it; he does it 
himself. 

It's not particularly one of those positions im*' 
California government which makes one the most popular person in 
California, but Mr. Nielsen brings to it that extraordinary 
degree of enthusiasm and responsibility which lends itself to my 
unequivocal request that the Committee recommend his 
confirmation unanimously. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Senator Nielsen, we have some 106,000 
inmates in our prison system in California. We have two Class 
IV facilities: Folsom and San Quentin. 

At what capacity are those facilities? 

SENATOR NIELSEN: Senator, it isn't the purview of 
the Board of Prison Terms to operate the institutions 
themselves. Our responsibility relates to the hearing of life 
prisoner cases, individuals with possibilities of parole. 

I do not know the figures of the numbers of prisoners 
at those institutions. There's somewhat over 10,000 individuals 
in the institutions of around 106,000 total who are prisoners 
that we consider. Where they are all at, and the numbers at 
each institution, I really don't know. 

SENATOR AYALA: But we only have two Class IV 
institutions . 

SENATOR NIELSEN: As far as I know, I believe there's 
one at Pelican Bay also. 

SENATOR AYALA: Oh, that's correct; you're right. 



22 

What criteria do you use to determine whether a 
convicted inmate who's been convicted of murder or rape is 
suitable for parole? What is it you use as criteria for that? 

SENATOR NIELSEN: The hearings are very exhaustive. 
To describe them, an attorney for the prisoner is present. 
Generally, if the county can fund such, they'll send a deputy 
district attorney to represent the people. 

The hearings are comprised of the portion dealing 
with the life crime itself, crime or crimes for which that 
individual was given the life term. We talk about that very 
exhaustively. We review transcripts applicable to prior 
hearings on this particular case and, as Senator Kopp indicated, 
various appellate decisions that may have occurred, the 
sentencing transcript at trial. We go through that exhaustively 
with the prisoner, prisoner's attorney. 

We further, then, consider what are called 
post-conviction factors . That would be everything that the 
individual has been involved in and/or done, positive and/or 
negative, since they have been in the institution. Some are 
very good and rehabilitate; some are very bad actors. Those 
surely we weigh. 

Further, we review all of the psychological or 
psychiatric reports — and/or psychiatric/psychological reports 
applicable to that individual by many evaluators over the years, 
including the one that is current as per the given hearing. 

We further then explore what are the so-called parole 
plans. In other words, if the person were given a parole, what 
would they do? What sort of support system is available to 



23 

available to them? 

Those are the elements that we deal with. 

SENATOR AYALA: How heavy does the testimony of the 
victim's relatives weigh? Do they have any input? They do have 
input . 

SENATOR NIELSEN: I neglected to mention that 
portion. 

Victim's family and/or victims do have the 
opportunity, either directly by personal appearance or through 
video, they can present either a letter, a video, or personally 
they can appear. And to assure that they are not intimidated, 
we allow them to have their comments at the very closing of the 
hearing, after the district attorney, the prisoner's attorney, 
and the prisoner have given closing statements as to what they 
think their suitability may be. Victims then have the 
opportunity. 

I would tell you that the panel considers those 
victim's statements very instructive. They are emotionally 
charged at times, I assure you, but I think it's important to 
have the input of victims . 

SENATOR AYALA: Does the Commission weigh that pretty 
heavy, what the relatives have to say? Obviously, they're all 
against releasing this inmate. Do you take that into 
consideration? 

SENATOR NIELSEN: I wouldn't necessarily say it's 
more heavily weighted than any other consideration. 

SENATOR AYALA: It is or is not? 

SENATOR NIELSEN: I would not say that it is more 



24 

heavily — 

SENATOR AYALA: Okay. 

SENATOR NIELSEN: — weighted than any other, because 
there are many applicable factors that are relevant. And you do 
have to understand the emotion of victims or victim's families 
that are involved. It certainly weighs emotionally on one who 
is evaluating, but I would say maybe it's probably equally taken 
in our deliberations as to the nature of the life crime itself, 
and if we have intuited and evaluators have evaluated that this 
individual has improved themselves [sic] since they have been 
incarcerated. 

Not frequently, I might note, do victim's family come 
and comment. That's irregular; not the norm. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there anyone here in 
opposition? I think I have Mr. Morrell's name. Yes, please 
come forward . 

MR. MORRELL: Senator Roberti and Members, I don't 
take any pleasure in coming up here and speaking to you today. 

It was 10-12 years ago when I sat as a chairman of a 
volunteer partisan political group and obtained Mr. Nielsen's 
first, or among the first, endorsements and financial campaigns 
to his initial candidacy for the office of the Senate. 

I was very disappointed sometime later when he 
appeared before the Solano County Central Committee — or Solano 
County Taxpayers Association, and responding to my question 
regarding — relative to a report in the Los Angeles Times about 
legislative spending, which was out of hand, Mr. Nielsen became 



25 

very upset and used some very strong language . And he 

foolishly, in my opinion, wrote a letter to one of my colleagues 

reiterating in writing what he said in public. And he said 

that: 

"There is no unaudited fund. There is a 

Senate contingency fund under strict 

scrutiny of the Department of Finance." 

And I went immediately to the Department of Finance 

and got a letter saying, in essence, that that was a false 

statement. 

Mr. Nielsen never retracted that statement, and for 

something on the order of a decade, an organization was formed 

to get that under control . 

At the early part of the program, I was engaged in a 

reform effort with a volunteer group, and when they discovered 

what Mr. Nielsen had done, they wrote him a letter: 

"I write to advise you of the 
unanimous decision of the . . . Executive 
Council, effective immediately, that you 
be terminated as a member of [the] . . . 
Legislative Advisory Council and further, 
that your endorsement of [our] . . . Consent 
Initiative be rejected as insincere and 
unsupported by your actual behavior in an 
office of high public trust. 

"Specifically, Senator, that 
behavior within the past several weeks has 
been characterized by deliberate 



26 

distortion of the truth and, in at least 
one instance, utterance — in writing — 
of blatant falsehood with respect to the 
use and misuse of some 67^ million of tax 
dollars allocated ... to the so-called 
[Legislative] Contingency funds .... 

"You have stated in writing that 
both funds are "... under the strict 
scrutiny [of] the Department of Finance. ■ 
To the contrary, the Deputy Director . . . 
has responded, also in writing, that 
' [the] Senate and Assembly contingent 
funds are exempt from the . . . accounting 
controls of [that] department.'" 
And it goes on. 

I was very frankly, and I also regret saying this, 
I'm very surprised that Senator Quentin Kopp came up here and 
made this endorsement for the very reason that, working in 
consort with me, he gained his office in the Senate in part by 
denouncing what he called and what I called the legislative 
slush fund, defended by his opponent, Assemblyman "Leadfoot 
Lou" Papan. 

I could go on. I think you have all of the letters 
that I've sent to you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, we have them on file. 
MR. MORRELL: And others. 

I want to call to your attention particularly, a 
little cynical, by Mrs. Ann Klink of Vacaville, who FAXed it 



27 

over to you this morning. She said something to the effect that 
if you make this appointment, it's a question of it takes one to 
know one, or words to that effect. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We've been accused of worse. 

MR. MORRELL: I also want to call your attention to 
the fact, Senator Petris, that during the period in which we 
were undertaking this endeavor, the Alameda County Grand Jury 
wrote in their second appeal to get a handle on this fund and 
said they recommended that a State Grand Jury be established to 
indict lawmakers who engage in conduct — improper conduct such 
as this. 

I could go on for a lengthy period of time. I think 
the Members of this Board, this Commission, this Committee are 
well aware that Senator Nielsen acted with the highest deceit. 
For an extended period of time, he made an effort of passing 
several bills, or a show of it, but he never did do anything 
firmly with it. He never came to people who would — might have 
supported and worked it out with him to get a bill that would do 
anything. He got one bill passed. The newspaper and his 
constituency said, when it got through, it was toothless, and it 
was . 

Finally, as the Senator is aware, it was through the 
office of this Committee, Chaired by Senator Roberti, we finally 
got a bill through, some seven or eight years later. 

Had Senator Nielsen looked at the situation, come 
back and made a statement that he had made a mistake, and taken 
a handle on this, we could have precluded this decade of 
endeavors, which, incidentally, Matthew Fong wrote in a 



28 

published letter, caused and was responsible for the fiscal 
element of Proposition 140, and arguably, to its adoption by a 
52-48 percent margin. 

So, I suggest it's just possible that had this 
condition been handled ten years ago, there would have no Prop. 
140 causing all these people to bail out, and $500,000 
taxpayers' money paid for new elections to get new people in, 
and it goes on. 

Any questions? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Morrell. 

Any questions of Mr. Morrell? 

I think it ' s important to note that the points which 
you addressed were responded to, as you indicated, in 
legislation and accompanying resolution. 

SENATOR NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I might note, I did 
— subsequent to these times that Mr. Morrell, by his 
recollection, comments upon, I did carry the only, at that 
point, successful legislation that enhanced the scrutiny of this 
particular issue. And later, along with Senator Kopp and the 
lead author, Senator Roberti, was principle co-author of the 
measure that seemed to be very much at the time to the suiting 
of Mr. Morrell. 

MR. MORRELL: Some eight years later. And the bill 
that was first introduced and passed was declared by constituent 
newspapers to be toothless, and it was. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there anyone else in the 
audience in opposition or with observations to make? 



29 

Then do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Senator Craven moves that the 
confirmation of Senator Nielsen be recommended to the Floor on 
the Board of Prison Terms. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is five to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

SENATOR NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to 
appear before the esteemed body again. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Congratulations . 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
2:45 P.M. ] 

— 00O00-- 



30 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 



this 



M- 



& 



day of February, 1993. 




EVELYN J. dflZAK 
Shorthand Reporter 



5 



218-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.50 per copy 
plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 100 J Street, Room B- 15 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 218-R when ordering. 




HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1993 
1:50 P.M. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAR 1 5 1993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



219-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1993 
1:50 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



MEMBERS PRESENT 



11 
APPEARANCES 



25 
26 

27 
28 



SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI, Chair 

SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

MEMBERS ABSENT 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

JOHN W . RICE , JR . , Member 
Board of Governors 
California Community Colleges 

SENATOR REBECCA MORGAN 

RONNY J. COLEMAN 
State Fire Marshal 

DAN COFFMAN, President 

California State Firefighters Association 

BRIAN HATCH 

California Professional Firefighters 



24 JAMES M. STUBCHAER, Member 



Water Resources Control Board 

ROBERT J. WEST, Director 

Office of Real Estate Appraisers 



INDEX 



ill 



Pa ge 



Proceeding 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

JOHN W. RICE, JR., Member 

Board of Governors 

California Community Colleges 1 

Introduction by SENATOR REBECCA MORGAN 1 

Background and Experience 2 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Position on Governors ' s Proposal to Raise 

Fees from $10 to $30 3 

Need to Provide Opportunities for Students 

to Work or Obtain Loans 4 

Criteria for Accepting Students into 

Community Colleges 5 

Motion to Confirm 6 

Committee Action 25 

RONNY J. COLEMAN 

State Fire Marshal 7 

Background and Experience 7 

Witnesses in Support: 

DAN COFFMAN, President 

California State Firefighters Association 8 

BRIAN HATCH 

California Professional Firefighters 9 

WALLY HURST, Assistant General Manager and 

Legislative Advocate 

California State Firefighters Association 10 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Possible Conflict of Interest with 

Phenix Technology 11 



IV 



I 

2 
3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



INDEX ( Continued! 

Motion to Confirm 11 

Committee Action 25 

JAMES M. STUBCHAER, Member 

Water Resources Control Board 12 

Background and Experience 13 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Board's Actions to Eradicate Nitrates 

in Groundwater 14 

Request that Nominee Evaluate Effectiveness 

of Reverse Osmosis Plant in Laverne 15 

Letter with Questions from SENATOR TOM HAYDEN .... 15 

Public Trust Doctrine 17 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Requirement by Law to Follow Doctrine ... 18 

Racanelli Decision 18 

State Wetlands Policy vs. Federal Policy .... 19 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Location of Water Used to Create 

or Expand Wetlands 20 

Certification Recommendations re: Nationwide 

Permits 21 

CEQA's Influence in Board Decisions 22 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Most Polluted Water in California 22 

Committee Action 24 

ROBERT J. WEST, Director 

Office of Real Estate Appraisers 25 

Background and Experience 25 



3 

4 
5 

6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



INDEX ( Continued 1 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Difference between License and 

Certification 26 

Motion to Confirm 27 

Committee Action 28 

Termination of Proceedings 28 

Certificate of Reporter 29 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Next we have Governor's Appointees 
appearing today. First is John W. Rice, Jr., Member of the 
Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. 

With Mr. Rice is Senator Morgan, who, I presume, is 
going to make some introductory remarks . 

SENATOR MORGAN: Thank you, Senator Craven and 
Members . 

Just very briefly because I know you have resumes 
before you, but I wanted to take this opportunity to come and 
introduce to you one of my favorite constituents, John Rice, who 
retired into my district, and yet never did retire. He has been 
a minister, been a school administrator, has taught in the 
classroom, but instead of retiring and taking it easy, he has 
come back not only to serve on the Community College Board of 
Trustees, but for me and the constituency that I represent, very 
importantly has established a group within the East Palo Alto 
community to get parents involved more with their children, and 
to have these young people doing homework after school in a 
safe, directed environment. 

So, I think you have before you someone that 
understands the education system; understands the needs of our 
young people, and particularly our college students. 

And just as importantly, I think, has raised a 
daughter who is a fine musician. And you may know her also as 
President Bush's Soviet Union specialist when it was still 
called the Soviet Union, and is back now teaching at Stanford, 



2 
3 
4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
23 
26 
27 
28 



but a very fine daughter that I've come to know and enjoy both 
for her skills and her friendship. 

With that, I'm sure Mr. Rice is available to the 
questions that you always ask, but I did want to take this 
opportunity to share with you how proud I am of Mr. Rice, and 
ask for your confirmation of his appointment. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much, Senator Morgan. 

Mr. Rice, we will ask, as we ask all of the nominees, 
why you feel you are qualified for this appointment? 

MR. RICE: Well, education has been the thing that I 
have worked with all of my life. I have been a Presbyterian 
minister, which I have recently retired. 

But in my lifetime as an educator, I have worked in 
all facets of education, from kindergarten on through the upper 
level college programs. 

I was able to bring Head Start programs in Alabama. 

I served — I have served as the Dean of Students at Denver 

University, as the Associate Dean of the College of Arts and 

Sciences, and as Vice Chancellor for Human Resources at Denver 
! 
University. 

I've worked with the United Negro College Fund. 
Well, many other things. 

But I do hold degrees : Bachelor ' s Degrees in 
Divinity and in Arts and Sciences; a Master's Degree in Arts and 
Sciences with an emphasis placed on Student Personnel 
Management. That, plus all of the years of working with 
students, I have an honorary Doctorate degree given to me for 
sending literally hundreds of young people to college and 



] 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



I gaining scholarships, and et cetera, for them. 

I think that these are the things which — that, plus 
a very definite desire to help young people to go to college. I 
feel that this the way into the system, and I feel as if what 
they need to do is get into the system and to succeed in the 
system. By so doing, I would think that we can solve many of 
the problems which we have in America today. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much, sir. 

Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak 
in favor of the nominee? Anyone who wishes to speak in 
opposition? There appears to be none. 

SENATOR AYALA: Question. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Rice, as you well know, our 
educational system, just like all of government, is having 
problems financing itself. 

What do you think of the Governor's proposal to 
^increase the fees for community college students from roughly 
$10 to $30 in order to help balance the budget? 

MR. RICE: Sir, it's one thing which is certain: 
there are less dollars laying around. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you? 

MR. RICE: There are fewer dollars all over the 
world. And as there are fewer dollars, it's going to have to be 
an awful lot of responsibility placed in other places. 

I feel as if there probably has to be a change. I 
have lived in many, many places in America, and we do have 
probably one of the lowest educational systems. As a matter of 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



fact, when I was pastoring, I had nine members to leave Alabama 
and come to California just so one little girl could get a free 

i 

education out here. 

So f these are the kinds of things. People are 



descending on us from everywhere out here. 



So, it would seem to me as if there is going to have 
to be some kind of change in our educational scale. To say $30, 
I'm not in a position to say that, but there is going to have to 
be some kind of change, and a change because the whole economic 
world and our country is changing, too. 

SENATOR AYALA: A lot of us consider the community 
college a pivotal segment of our educational system, where many 
times, students who maybe aren't mature enough to go to a four- 
year college, but they can stick around home, and just like they 
were in high school, and maybe two years later they're mature 
enough to attempt to go into a four-year college. So, we know 
that that ' s extremely important . 

But to charge them $30 per unit, it's almost like 
excluding these folks that cannot afford to continue their 
education. 

Would you agree that if you're going to increase the 
fees by the amount, that some provisions for loan, or for work 

for the students could be provided so they can pay for it? 

i 

Their folks can't pay for it many times. These are kids that go 

I 

| from the community, and they're really in the lower economic 
ladder, you know, of our society, and they cannot afford to go 
to a four-year college, but maybe two years later they can. 

If you start increasing their fees, it's an exclusive 



movement. These people cannot get involved, so you should 

I 

provide some way of loan that they can work out, or work at 

J! school, you know, and deferred maintenance or something. I 

jl 

i; think the unions would get angry at me when I say that, but make 

lisure that these people are not left out simply because they 

l! 

•cannot afford the $30 per unit. 

Do you agree to that? 

MR. RICE: I will agree, sir, that we must find some 
way of making sure that there is access to education in California 

for everybody. And in order to do this, I would agree with you 

|i 

that there must be some measures taken to offset the heightened 

j 
tuition. 

j| 

SENATOR AYALA: You know, the community colleges, 
just like our four-year colleges, are to the point they cannot 

accept any more students . 

i 

What criteria would you use to eliminate some of 
these students from attending when you have more than you can 
handle, or can accept, at the community colleges? 

MR. RICE: As I have looked at the community college 



23 

jl 

24 

| 

I, 

25 

n 
i 1 

26 

27 
2S 



^completing the two years and, hopefully, the four years. 

jl 

I know that in one state I've lived, Alabama, we have 

|i 

what is known as trade schools, which means that maybe the 

Spanish and German and Russian, and et cetera, isn't asked of 

i 

these students, but they are expected to learn a trade so that 
they can take care of themselves. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



So, maybe, and it's just a possibility. I don't know 
what the dropout rate is; I don't know what the rate is of 
students who really can't compete in junior college. But this 
is one thing we should look at . 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you have any idea what criteria 
would you use if you had more, and you probably will have more 
students thank you can handle or accept? What criteria would 
you use to accept students, and those that you wouldn't accept? 
Is there anything you think should be used? 

MR. RICE: As I've indicated, those who can't be 
accepted — 

SENATOR AYALA: Those who what? 

MR. RICE: That can't be accepted. They can't be 
ji accepted because maybe they don't have the capability to really 
work with all of the junior college askings, a strict straight 
! trade school for these people. We've got -- they've got to live 
here, and in a capitalistic system, they have got to be able to 
compete. If you can't compete in capitalistic system, you're 
i'sort of dead. 

!l 

So, I think we could come up with some type of 
training, or trades, something which will help them to support 
and maintain themselves. If we don't get that, we get caught on 
welfare and this type of thing. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: No questions, but I'm prepared to 
move we recommend confirmation. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Beverly moves. Call the 



roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 
Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Mr. Rice, I think we'll keep the 
roll open. Senator Roberti may be with us a little later in the 
meeting — I don't think that Senator Petris will — but we'll 
pick up another vote. You have enough right now, but we get as 
many as we can in this business. So, if you will bear with us, 
that ' s what we ' 11 do . 

Thank you; congratulations. 

Thank you, Senator Morgan. 

Next is Ronny J. Coleman, State Fire Marshal. 

Mr. Coleman, we will ask you, as we asked the others, 
to state why you feel that you are qualified for this position? 

CHIEF COLEMAN: Yes, Senator. 

I've been in the fire service approximately 32 years, 
having shared the experiences of working for both U.S. Forest 
Service, Park Service, and then three municipalities in Orange 
County, California. 

And in that 32 years of service, I've done basically 
two things . One is to be involved in the spectrum of activity 
in the fire service, from code enforcement, through the training 



8 

and education and delivery system, and then simultaneously, 
obtaining an educational background consisting of a Fire Science 
Degree, a Political Science Degree, and I'm currently completing 
my Master's Degree in Training and Education, Vocational 
Education. 

During that 32 years, I've been extensively involved 
in both community activities from both local jurisdiction and 
statewide activities, and I believe that I have a fairly good 
understanding of the issues of the State Fire Marshal's Office, 
the relationship between the state and local jurisdictions in 
enforcement of those rules, and the relationship with the fire 
service. 

I believe those have prepared me for fulfilling this 
position. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Very good. 

Is there anyone in the audience who would wish to 
speak in favor of this appointment? If you would, come forward, 
please. State your name for the record. 

MR. COFFMAN: My name is Dan Coffman, C-o-f-f-m-a-n. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Sit down, Dan, and relax and take it 
easy. 

MR. COFFMAN: Well, I've written a few notes. 

Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, ladies and 
gentlemen, my name is Dan Coffman. And I'm a Chino Valley 
Firefighter in Senator Ayala ' s district. 

SENATOR AYALA: I thought you had a lot of class when 
I first looked at you. 

[ Laughter . ] 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



MR. COFFMAN: I'm President of the California State 
Firefighters Association, which is the largest and most 
representative fire service organization in California. And I'm 
currently the Vice Chair of the State Board of Fire Services, 
which is the state board that Chief Coleman presides over. 

I'm pleased to come in support of the confirmation of 
Chief Coleman for the California State Fire Marshal's position. 
I've known Chief Coleman for nearly 20 years, and have a great 
appreciation for the impact that has personally had on the fire 
service in California, throughout the country, and actually 
internationally. He's well known throughout the world. 

As State Fire Marshal, he, particularly in these 
economic times, has had a tremendous impact, positive impact, on 
the State Fire Marshal's Office and the fire service in general. 

My remarks will be limited, because you have his 
resume. You should know his credentials and support. 

But I would just to ask for your aye vote and 
confirmation of Chief Ron Coleman for California State Fire 
Marshal . 

Thank you very much. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much, sir. 

Is there someone else? State your name. 

MR. HATCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Brian Hatch on behalf of the California Professional 
Firefighters. 

I'll be brief. I'm here on behalf of Dan Terry, 
President of the California Professional Firefighters, who 
wanted to be here but is at the economic conference down in Los 



10 

Angeles today. 

And just indicate that in our association with 
Mr. Coleman, we find him to be a very honorable, forthright, and 
a very knowledgeable person in the area of fire protection and 
fire prevention related issues. 

It gives me pleasure to indicate that we also support 
Mr. Coleman's confirmation. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much, Brian. 

Yes, sir. State your name for the record, please. 

MR. HURST: Mr. Chairman and Members, Wally Hurst. 
I'm the Assistant General Manager and the Legislative Advocate 
for the California State Firefighters Association. 

I just want to add our strong support as an 
Association for Ron. Having worked for Ron Coleman, having 
known Ron Coleman, having read the works of Ron Coleman, you 
have before you a very highly qualified, innovative, highly 
qualified individual to run the State Fire Marshal's Office. 
Every agency in California needs his leadership and management 
skills, and we're very, very happy to add all of our 
endorsements, as well as the other ones you have gotten. 

As you look over his resume, it's very obvious that 
he's the right person for the job. 

I'm here representing my General Manager, Eldon 
Nagle, who is here and indicates his support. He's known Ron 
even longer than I have. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much, sir. 



11 

Anyone else? There appears to be no one. 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Coleman, all the indications I 
have are that you're a highly qualified person for the position 
you ' re seeking . 

Your biographical outline shows that you're the 
President of Phenix Technology, a manufacturer of fire helmets. 

Do you envision any conflict of interest with your 
position in the state and this firm that you're the President 
of? 

CHIEF COLEMAN: Yes, I do. In fact, as a matter of 
course, as soon as I was notified that I was candidate for this 
position, I resigned my presidency of that and divested myself 
of any financial interest in the corporation. I've made the 
necessary legal transfers and removed myself from having any 
ability to interact with that corporation during the period of 
time I'm working here. 

SENATOR AYALA: Very good, thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Beverly moves. There being 
no further objection, call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 
Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 



12 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Three-zero, which is out. 

Congratulations, Ron. 

CHIEF COLEMAN: Thank you very much, sir. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I should tell those of you in the 
audience that Mr. Coleman shares a bond with the three Members 
that you see seated up here. We're all Marines. So, you had it 
pretty well greased going in, I think. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHIEF COLEMAN: And as I remember correctly, Senator, 
when I walked out of your office yesterday, in the discussion, 
the last two words we exchanged, I feel compelled to repeat 
today: Semper Fi. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: That's right. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: The roll will be kept open, I 
assume? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Yes. 

Next is Mr. James M. Stubchaer, Member, Water 
Resources Control Board. 

Did I pronounce your name correctly? 

MR. STUBCHAER: Yes, you did. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Very good, thank you, sir. It's a 
little different. 

MR. STUBCHAER: Most people don't get it the first 
time. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I can understand that. 

Would you tell us why you feel you are qualified for 
this position, sir? 



13 

MR. STUBCHAER: I'll try. 

Two of the five members of the Water Resources 
Control Board are required to be engineers. I occupy one of 
those seats. 

I am a licensed civil engineer in California. I have 
a Bachelor's and a Master's degree in Civil Engineering from the 
University of Southern California, and another year's 
postgraduate work in hydraulics engineering from Delft 
Technological University in The Netherlands . 

I worked 30 years for the Santa Barbara County Flood 
Control and Water Conservation District, most of it as its 
manager. I also managed the Santa Barbara County Water Agency 
for ten concurrent years. 

After leaving the Flood Control District, I was a 
private consultant on water matters until I was appointed to 
this Board. 

I served on — two terms on the Central Coast 
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and three years on the 
California Water Commission, again, resigning when I was 
appointed to this Board. 

I hope that this training and experience qualify me 
to be a member of the Board. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Very good, thank you very much, sir. 

Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak 
in favor of this nominee? Anyone opposed? There appears to be 
none. 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to ask the candidate here, 



14 

that area that I represent, there are a lot of dairies. We get 
problems with nitrates into the underground basin. 

Is there anything that the Control Board is doing to 
eradicate that problem? 

MR. STUBCHAER: Nitrates are probably the most 
significant contaminant in groundwater in California. And there 
have been a combination of things which have been done. One is 
shutting down some wells, or deepening wells to an aquifer which 
is not contaminated. Either doing ion exchange or reverse 
osmosis treatment of the water to remove the nitrates. Those 
are measures which kind of treat the problem. They don't 
prevent it from happening. 

There are studies under way in several Cal . EPA 
agencies, including the Water Board, trying to define the 
problem, prevent it from spreading and reoccurring. 

Where it already exists, it's quite difficult to 
treat it, other than as I just mentioned. 

SENATOR AYALA: I think it's called the Three Valleys 
Water District down in my area, has a reverse osmosis plant in 
Laverne . 

Are you familiar with that? 

MR. STUBCHAER: No, I'm not. 

SENATOR AYALA: They brought it in from Switzerland, 
I understand, and for that purpose of nitrates. I understand 
they're doing a good job with it. I just wondered if you were 
familiar with that. 

MR. STUBCHAER: No. I know that process will do a 
good job, but it's expensive. 



15 

SENATOR AYALA: Would you take a look at that and see 
what you think about that process and the effectiveness of that 
process? 

MR. STUBCHAER: I'd be happy to. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Beverly moves. 

Before we go to vote on that, I have, Mr. Stubchaer, 
a letter from Senator Hayden which he wants to include in the 
record, and he asks a couple of questions. 

I will read this to you so the response which you 
give, of course, we'll have on the record: 

"I had hoped to attend personally 

tomorrow's hearing before the Senate 

Committee on Rules to learn more about 

your qualifications to serve the people of 

California, but now will be unable to 

attend . 

"There are the questions I would 

have asked. Assuming your nomination is 

passed out of committee, I would 

appreciate your sharing with me your 

responses in advance of the Senate floor 

vote. 

"In light of your background as a 

supply-side purveyor of water, how do you 

interpret the meaning of public trust and 

how do you perceive Public Trust Doctrine 



16 



influencing your decisions on the Board? 

"In the past, many water allotments 
were made at the expense of the 
environment, but the Audubon and Racanelli 
decisions require equal treatment of the 
environment and people. How will you 
interpret the concept of equal treatment 
in balancing water allocations and public 
trust issues? 

"State and federal policy toward 
wetland protection is ... " 
and he quotes, 

"'no net loss in value or acreage,' yet it 
is my understanding that the Board has no 
wetland policy at present. What role will 
you take in developing a wetland policy on 
the Board? 

"Under the federal Clean Water Act, 
the Board is authorized to certify Army 
Corps of Engineers ' Nationwide Permits ' 
and that certification process is 
underway. A preliminary Board 
recommendation has identified 
certification conditions for wetland 
protection. What is your view of those 
recommendations? Would you strengthen or 
weaken the certification recommendations? 

"As a member of the Board, you are 



17 

sworn to uphold state law including the 

California Environmental Quality Act. 

What influence should CEQA play in Board 

decisions on water allocation matters? 

"I appreciate your taking the time 

to respond to this inquiry." 
I'll give this to you and you can look at it. You may have 
trouble remembering all the questions, let alone the answers. 

So, answer those as best you can for the record, then 
we'll pass it on to Mr. Hayden. 

MR. STUBCHAER: I'll try. 

Public Trust Doctrine has been defined in courts as 
requiring treatment of the environment as equal with other 
traditional water uses. The Board, of course, considers the 
public trust uses in making our decisions on water rights cases, 
and it has to be considered as required by the law. 

But I can't prejudge without hearing the evidence, 
case by case, how I would vote on a particular issue, but it 
certainly has to be considered. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Let me interrupt you by asking you a 
question briefly. 

It's something that you contended with for many 
years; isn't it? 

MR. STUBCHAER: No, not really. I've contended with 
it in the 11 months I've been on this Board, but I wasn't 
involved at the regional board level in allocating water rights, 
and that's mainly where the public trust issue arises. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Chair, may I inquire. 



18 



SENATOR CRAVEN: Yes, Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Isn't the Board required by law to 
follow the Public Trust Doctrine as applied to the Mono Lake 
problem? You have no choice. 

MR. STUBCHAER: Yes, we have to follow the Public 
Trust Doctrine. 

It's my understanding it ' s evolved through case law 
and not statute. But we do deal with the Public Trust Doctrine. 

SENATOR AYALA: And the Racanelli decision doesn't 
affect it at all? 

MR. STUBCHAER: That is part of it. It certainly 
does . 

SENATOR AYALA: Well, a district court, of course, 
only applies to the area that court has jurisdiction over, not 
statewide. 

MR. STUBCHAER: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: But that's what they used for the 
Mono Lake problem, was the Department of Water and Power in Los 
Angeles; is that correct? 

MR. STUBCHAER: I believe that the Mono Lake case was 
decided in a Superior Court in El Dorado County. 

The Racanelli case does establish precedent, though, 
which directs the Board to consider the Public Trust Doctrine. 

SENATOR AYALA: But no one has challenged the 
Racanelli decision because it only applies to the area in which 
the jurisdiction — I think it's around Oakland, someplace, 
where that district is? 

MR, STUBCHAER: And east of Oakland all the way to 



19 

the Delta. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MR. STUBCHAER: The next question? 



SENATOR CRAVEN: Yes, sir, if you would. 

MR. STUBCHAER: This has to do with the wetlands 

policy, and what is the role of the Board and my position in 

developing a wetlands policy. 

i 
There already is a federal wetlands policy. The 

question which the Board is facing is, should the state policy 

go beyond the federal policy? Should there be more than one 

definition of a wetland? 

And my own view is, I'm not convinced yet that there 
needs to be a separate definition. I understand that U.S. EPA 
just recently adopted the Corps of Engineers 1987 definition. 
That is the definition toward which I lean. 

Certainly, wetlands need to be preserved, and the "no 
net loss" concept is state and federal policy. There are 
differences of opinion in what the qualities of wetlands are: 
whether or not mitigation measures taken to create wetlands can, 
in fact, create wetlands of comparable quality to those which 
might be lost in development. That's an ongoing issue. 

The next one? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: Question on that. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Yes, Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Wetlands, you're supportive of the 
creation of wetlands. There's some that exist today, but 
there's some expansion to some in creating new ones. 



20 



Do you have any idea where the water would come from 
for those wetlands? 

MR. STUBCHAER: There are different types of 
wetlands, as you know. There's the traditional wetlands — when 
I initially thought of wetlands, I think of the estuaries around 
San Francisco Bay, and some of the coastal marshes, and coastal 
California. 

Where those types of wetlands are mitigated or new 
ones created to offset the possible filling of other ones, the 
ocean provides the water there, of course. They're tidal 
marshes . 

Inland, just to the south of Sacramento here, in the 
Laguna area, you see created wetlands, and those are being 
created to offset the impacts of developing east of 1-5. And 
the water for those is — it's local water, but I think in that 
area, if you dig a hole deep enough, it fills with water. 

And so, there are — and then in the headwaters, it 
might take diversions from streams to fill some of the created 
wetlands . 

So, there's no single answer to your question. 

But some of the wetlands in the grass lands, the 
wildlife refuges, receive an allocation of water from the Bureau 
of Reclamation Reform Act, HR 429, as I'm sure you're aware. 

SENATOR AYALA: Many people I've talked to are for 
the creation and expansion of wetlands, but they don't tell me 
where the water's going to come from for that, you know. So, I 
have a little problem with that expansion and creating new 
wetlands . 



21 

MR. STUBCHAER: The next one has to do with the 
certification of "Nationwide Permits" by the Corps of Engineers. 
The question is, would I strengthen or weaken the certification 
recommendations . 

We have heard the recommendations. We've been 
deliberating on them, but we have not yet made a decision on the 
final action. 

There's one area involving certification of 
Nationwide Permits that troubles me a little bit. It's where 
you have something that's called a vernal pool. That's an area 
that's not connected with a stream. It's a slight depression in 
the ground that occasionally may have water in it, after a rain 
storm. 

Whether or not a vernal pool should be considered as 
wetlands has a potentially profound effect on private property 
rights. Technically speaking, if you have a little depression 
in your backyard that occasionally fills with rain water or 
runoff from the roof, that could become a vernal pool and 
subject to regulation under wetlands, which, in my viewpoint, is 
excessive. 

So, we are striving to reach a balance on this issue 
so we can make an appropriate decision that will still protect 
the wetlands, but not unduly inhibit private property rights. 

I don't have the answer yet. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I think that probably takes care of 
all of them, doesn't it? 

MR. STUBCHAER: Well CEQA. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Oh, that's right. 



22 

MR. STUBCHAER: What influence should CEQA play in 
Board decisions? Well, by law it plays a very large influence 
in Board decisions. It's the law of the state, and we must 
comply with it, and I think we do comply with it. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, that seems like a rather 
simple answer. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have one more question, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Where do you think the worst polluted or the worst 
quality water is in California? 

MR. STUBCHAER: The worst quality water for drinking 
or bathing? 

SENATOR AYALA: Potable water. 

MR. STUBCHAER: Salton Sea. 

SENATOR AYALA: The New River? 

MR. STUBCHAER: It's so saline you can't drink it, 
and the New River adds contaminants to it . 

SENATOR AYALA: That originated in Mexico, however. 
It's an international problem. 

MR. STUBCHAER: The contaminants originate in Mexico, 
but the salt originated from the Colorado River. 

From the point of view of potable water, the salts 
are more of a problem than the contaminants. The combination is 
pretty bad. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: That's my old district. 

MR. STUBCHAER: Nice area. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: If anybody wants to sell you some 



23 



shares of stock from the development of the Salton Sea, run. 

It's a rather strange situation, and you talk about 
the New River coming up there. It's terrible. 

But I think, Ruben, that they're doing something 
about it now, the Mexican government. 

SENATOR AYALA: There is international effort. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I think so, but they've said that 
for many, many years. 

MR. STUBCHAER: There was a recent treaty amendment 
signed or initialed in Calexico in May, that you're probably 
familiar with, that's supposed to deal with that. 

I have one question, Mr. Chairman. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Yes. 

MR. STUBCHAER: Will my responses to these questions 
on the record of this proceeding be an adequate response to 
Senator Hayden? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Probably not. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I would find it somewhat difficult 
to speak on his behalf. 

But I'll tell you, I wouldn't lose any sleep on that 

MR. STUBCHAER: I will make an attempt to meet with 
him. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: That would be very kind, and I'm 
sure the Senator will appreciate it a great deal. 

We'll also give you a copy of your remarks so you 
will know what you have said. 

MR. STUBCHAER: That's always helpful. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Now, let's ask the boss here, Mr. 



24 



President Pro Tern, Senator Roberti, Chairman of this Committee, 
do you have any questions? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I don't have any questions. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Renew my motion. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves that 
confirmation be recommended to the Floor. 

Is there any opposition? Not seeing anyone, 
Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 
I Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

MR. STUBCHAER: Thank you, gentlemen. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves the call be 
lifted on John W. Rice appointment and the Ronny J. Coleman 
appointment. Without objection, such will be the order. 

Secretary will call the roll on Rice. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I! 

12 

14 
15 
16 

17 
18 
19 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



25 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Secretary will call the roll on Ronny Coleman. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

The next appointment is Robert J. West, Director of 
the Office of Real Estate Appraisers. 

Mr. West, we will ask you what we ask all the 
Governor's appointees, and that's why you feel you're qualified 
to assume this position? 

MR. WEST: Before I begin, I have brought some 
material with me. I don't know what you have in front of you. 
I brought a copy of a resume. If you don't have that, I have 
that available. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We have that. 

MR. WEST: I've been involved in the real estate 
appraisal business for approximately 27 years, since graduating 
from college. I graduated as an undergraduate from Stanford in 
Economics. I have an M.B.A. from Stanford also, which I -- 
where I graduated in 1970. 

Since being involved in the appraisal business, I've 
written several articles, technical articles, primarily on the 
appraisal business. I've been involved in professional 
associations with various organizations, primarily the American 
Society of Appraisers, and risen through their chairs, and 



I 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



26 

occupied several capacities there. 

When the legislation originated with respect to the 
requirement of the federal government to license and certify — 
or, have the states license and certify appraisers throughout 
the country, I was involved in one of the organizations which 
tried to influence the shape of that legislation and was 
successful in several instances in expressing our points of 
view. 

I've also been involved at various times in local 
government: the Planning Commission in Irvine, and the City 
Council in Irvine. So, I have an interest in government. 

I've taught appraisal. This, to me, is a 
progression, culmination of activities that I have been involved 
in. It's not that other people couldn't do the job as well as I 
could, but I have had an interest in it, and I have a background 
in the business of appraising, as well as shaping the appraisal 
profession, and knowledge in the appraisal field. 

So, I hope — I sit before you today in hopes of 
confirmation to continue that kind of activity. 

And Loretta Maxwell and Rosemary Swartz have also 
come along. They were in the office long before I was. They 
did an outstanding job and will continue. 

If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are there any questions of Mr. 
West? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd just like to ask, what's the 
difference licensed and being certified? 

MR. WEST: There are various levels of credentials 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



27 

and qualifications. To be certified or licensed by the state, 
it has to do with the amount of education that's required. For 
a license level, for example, you need 75 hours of prescribed 
education. For the certified level for a general certification, 
you need 165 hours. 

This educational background relates to the type of 
appraisals that you're then qualified to do. General appraisals 
| — a general certification presumably, at least based on the 
state requirements, you can appraise any kind of property, 
provided you feel you're qualified to do it. For the license 
level, you're only appraising one to four unit residential 
units . 

SENATOR AYALA: So, a certified appraiser has more 
educational background than a licensed? 

MR. WEST: Correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are there any further questions? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Craven moves that 
confirmation be recommended to the Floor. 

Is there any opposition in the audience? 

You're getting off easy. 



Secretary, call the roll. 



24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 



28 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Robert i 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
I! confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 
Congratulations . 
MR. WEST: Thank you very much. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
2:32 P.M.] 

— ooOoo — 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



29 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

V IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 

IP** 

this 16 day of February, 1993. 




, >«,,/ 



TCLYN'J. MIZAK J 
Shorthand Reporter " 



219-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.50 per copy 
plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

11 00 J Street, Room B- 15 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 219-R when ordering. 






HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1993 
1:57 P.M. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAR 1 5 1993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



220-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1993 
1:57 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



2 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 

3 SENATOR DAVID ROBERT I , Chair 

4 SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 

5 SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

6 SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

7 SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRI S 

8 STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 



9 
10 
II 
12 



ROBERT H. SHELTON, Member 
California Transportation Commission 

JUDY R. KUHLMAN, PH.D., Deputy Director 
Employment Development Department 



13 ALSO PRESENT 

14 GEORGE NICHOLAW, Member 
California Horse Racing Board 

15 

16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Ill 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



INDEX 



Page 



Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 

GEORGE NICHOLAW, Member 

California Horse Racing Board 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Motion to Confirm 2 

Committee Action 3 

ROBERT H. SHELTON, Member 

California Transportation Commission 3 

Background and Experience 3 

Motion to Confirm 4 

Committee Action 4 

JUDY R. KUHLMAN, PH.D., Deputy Director 

Employment Development Department 5 

Background and Experience 5 

Motion to Confirm 5 

Committee Action 6 

Termination of Proceedings 6 

Certificate of Reporter 7 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Governor ' s appointees appearing 
today, George Nicholaw, Member of the California Horse Racing 
Board . 

I think we all know you, Mr. Nicholaw, but we've got 
to ask you the question: why you feel you're qualified to 
assume this position? 

MR. NICHOLAW: Well, I think I've got to stretch back 
about three decades, in 1960, when I was with Channel 2 in Los 
Angeles. We started the first racing program with Gil Stratten 
every Saturday afternoon from Santa Anita. And that was my 
first association with horse racing, and I found it very, very 
interesting. 

Through the years I moved on to Chicago, and then on 
to New York, and when I returned in 1967 to Los Angeles as 
Manager of KNX News Radio, and we went to the news radio format, 
after about a year I came up here to Sacramento to see why we 
couldn't do reports on horse racing. 

Horse racing is a very important business to the 
State of California, and it seemed to me that we were 
overlooking one of the biggest revenue gainers for our own state 
that would provide a lot of services . Going through the Horse 
Racing Board's policies, I discovered that we could broadcast 
stretch calls on radio every — providing that we gave them 
seven minutes after each race, and we could only do a feature 
race live each day. When I returned to Los Angeles, CBS Law was 
not too enamored about this because of the FCC regulation that 



2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1! 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



we shouldn't be aiding and abetting gambling. 

What we were going to do, and what we were planning 
to do, and what we did do was present these stretch calls on — 
on radio as sports actualities, which we still do to this day. 
We started in 1969 with that program, and today, I think, in 
Southern California alone there are about 25 radio stations that 
do report on this Board, which I think is very, very important. 

I think that my chief qualification for this 
appointment lies in the fact that I'm a successful businessman, 
and I think that horse racing is a major business. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

Are there any questions of Mr. Nicholaw? 

This is our chance to give you a hard time, but I 
don't have any really good questions I want to ask you. 

MR. NICHOLAW: What are you looking for? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: So, I'm missing my golden 
opportunity. 

Are there any other questions of Mr. Nicholaw? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I would move Mr. Nicholaw. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Craven moves the 
confirmation to the Floor. 

Is there any opposition in the audience? 

Then we will call the roll on Senator Craven's 



motion. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is five to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

MR. NICHOLAW: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I am going to turn the Chair over 
momentarily to Senator Craven, and we will take up Robert H. 
Shelton, Member of the California Transportation Commission. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Mr. Shelton, please have a seat. 
Tell us, if you will, why you feel you're qualified for this 
position? 

MR. SHELTON: Mr. Chairman, I'm retired at this stage 
of my life. I am a person who spent about half of his adult 
life in various public service assignments and the other half in 
private enterprise. 

I've had a life-long interest in transportation as a 
subject. I've been somewhat active in both statewide and local 
and regional transportation interest groups for a good many 
years. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I notice that you're a former 
governmental employee, having been a city manager several times. 

MR. SHELTON: That's correct. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



SENATOR CRAVEN: Are you happy to get rid of that? 
MR. SHELTON: Well, it was an easier job then than it 



is now. 



SENATOR CRAVEN: I think you're absolutely correct. 

Do any Members of the Committee have any questions of 
this gentleman at this time? 

Does anyone in the audience? There appears to be 
none. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Beverly moves. 

No further comment, call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

Four to zero. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Measure's out. 

Congratulations . 

MR. SHELTON: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Is Dr. Kuhlman here? Yes, there she 
is. This is Judy R. Kuhlman, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Employment 
Development Department. 

You know what we're going to ask you, don't you? 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



DR. KUHLMAN: Why do I feel I'm qualified? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: That's right. 

DR. KUHLMAN: I feel I'm qualified for the position 
because I would bring to it the uniqueness of three specific 
areas that are very important to training and employment in the 
State of California. I have a background, skills and abilities 
that deal with education, with economic development, and with 
job training programs. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Very good. 

If you wondered what we looked at, we looked at your 
resume here. I notice that you are two days younger than my 
oldest boy. 

DR. KUHLMAN: Good time for a birthday. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: That's right. 

Is there anyone on the Committee that has a question 
of the doctor? 

Anyone in the audience? There appears to be none. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move confirmation. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Beverly moves. 

No objection, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 
Four to zero. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: You took us without any trouble at 
all. Congratulations. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
2:32 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
jj attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this r^/ 1 day of February, 1993. 



lis pS 7 



14 
15 
16 

17 

18 

i 

19 

20 




SVELYN J.^MIZAK J> 
Shorthand Reporter 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



I 



220-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.00 per copy 
plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

11 00 J Street, Room B-15 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 220-R when ordering. 






;